All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 16, 2021 - Dinesh D'Souza
57:16
THE FRAMING OF MATT GAETZ Dinesh D’Souza Podcast Ep239
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
I have Congressman Matt Gaetz on the podcast today.
We're going to talk about the left's happily unsuccessful effort to frame him.
We're also going to talk about how to depanzify.
Is that a word? Well, it is now.
The Republican Party.
The Supreme Court, I think, is getting ready to deliver some very good news on religious liberty and on scholarships to children to go to private schools.
Russia and China are forming a dangerous alliance.
I'll tell you about it. All of this is happening while Biden fiddles and Harris cackles.
Debbie is going to join me.
We're going to talk about the latest news about the January 6th political prisoners.
And kind of leading up to Christmas, I'm going to do a brief exposition on the prayer that Jesus taught us to pray, the Lord's Prayer.
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.
I'm really chuckling at an article in Slate, the online magazine.
It concludes with the following line, In the name of promoting religious liberty, SCOTUS, the Supreme Court, is poised to repeal the establishment clause itself.
Whenever I read this kind of over-the-top assertion, I know something great is about to happen.
So when the left is freaking out, it usually means that one of their cherished orthodoxies is about to be body-slammed by the Supreme Court.
And in this case, what's going to be body slammed, I think, delightfully, is their absurd idea that the Establishment Clause, which basically says that the government cannot, quote, establish religion.
Quite clearly for the founders, what this meant is that you can't have a national religion.
In fact, it didn't even mean that you couldn't have a state religion.
Why? Because there were a number of states that had established religions at the time.
The Anglican religion was established.
So you had these establishments and the constitution was not addressed to them.
So, the idea that government has to be kind of officially hostile to religion, it can have nothing to do with religion, it can offer subsidies, but even though it's offering subsidies, those subsidies have to exclude religious institutions.
This is all leftist fanaticism that has been imposed on the Constitution.
It's not what the Constitution says, and it's not even what a kind of normal reading of the Constitution would suggest.
There's a case that just went before the Supreme Court.
The hearing is already over.
And these hearings are just fun to watch.
I don't often watch them live.
I'll follow up by reading about the comments from the different justices.
The level of just intelligent interrogation is really what is a pleasure to observe.
This case is called Carson v.
Macon. Basically, there is a law in Maine Which says that if you don't live near a public school...
If you do, you have to go to your public school.
But if you don't live near a public school, then...
You can claim a subsidy from the state that allows you to get transportation to go to the nearest public school if you want.
So you can contract to go to the nearest public school and the state subsidy helps you to do that.
Or you can go to a private school.
And you can use the state subsidy to pay for the private school educational services.
Maine decided this applies to private schools, but it doesn't apply to religious schools.
Religious schools are excluded from this subsidy.
And, of course, in defending itself, Maine invokes the Establishment Clause.
The government is not allowed to, quote, And that allows you to go to private schools in the first place as if the no establishment clause requires the government to exclude religious schools.
This is the left's position.
It's also the state of Maine's position.
And Maine Deputy Attorney General Christopher Taub argues this case on behalf of Maine.
Now on the other side you have religious freedom attorneys including our buddy Kelly Shackelford from First Liberty arguing in favor of these families that want to send their kids to a religious school.
And it's very clear from the justices' remarks, and by the way, we're talking about all the six justices' Republican nominees, including John Roberts.
It seems very clear that they have no patience for the left's nonsense in this case.
But it's also the way that they argue that I think makes this so interesting.
By the way, there is an important precedent the left is always talking about.
You've got to respect precedent.
Well, it turns out that there is a precedent.
The precedent is called Espinoza v.
Montana Department of Revenue, 2002, in which case the...
The Supreme Court basically said that you can have a private school choice program that includes religious schools.
Here's Justice Roberts, I'm quoting him, meaning they don't have to subsidize it.
He goes, but once a state decides to do so, it cannot disqualify some private schools solely because they are religious.
So what you're getting at here is the heart of the matter.
Basically, what Justice Roberts is saying is you cannot discriminate against religious schools.
If you're offering a subsidy to private schools, it's got to go to private schools of the parent's choice.
And that would include, let's say, not just a Baptist school or a Catholic school, but quite frankly, even an Islamic school.
Now, the case goes before the Supreme Court, this case, the main case, and the justices are really good in probing the issue very effectively.
And here's Kavanaugh.
The exclusion of religious people and religious institutions from public benefits solely because they are religious is itself discriminatory.
So for Kavanaugh, this appears to be an open and shut case.
Amy Coney Barrett makes a subtle point.
She says, wait a minute. You know, you keep talking about how these religious values, the government can subsidize religious values.
She goes, well, don't secular schools have some sense of values that they teach?
Why should we privilege those values over the religious values?
Sam Alito, he says, what if there's a private school that is inculcating a kind of secular...
Purely materialistic view of life.
That's a philosophy. That's, you could argue, a religion.
That's certainly a moral code.
He goes, do you think that the Maine subsidy will allow parents?
Of course, they can send their kids to that school.
So why is it the case that a purely materialistic view of life is acceptable, but evidently a religious view of life is not?
And who assigned the state of Maine the right to make these kinds of judgments about the good life?
To decide, this is the good life.
That's not the good life.
So what you see here, and of course, Maine is trying to constantly duck out of this by saying, well, and then here's Alito.
He goes, what if you have a private school that teaches critical race theory?
And that's all they teach.
Are parents allowed to send their kids to that school?
Obviously, yes, because they're a private school, and they can teach pretty much whatever they want.
Well, isn't critical race theory a philosophy?
Doesn't it embody a set of values?
Doesn't it, in fact, assign almost religious categories of victimization?
You're the perpetrator, guilt, innocence, penitence, or no penitence allowed.
Well, if that religious doctrine can be taught in the name of critical race theory— Why can't a Baptist school teach Baptist, integrate Baptist teachings into its educational philosophy?
Now, Maine, of course, wants to resist this.
And, of course, in the article in Slate, the guy goes, quote, if this is allowed to continue, he goes, this is going to encourage states all over the country to have these private programs and they're going to be funding religious schools, unquote.
It will undermine the premise of public education in America.
Fantastic. This is great.
What's interesting is that when you listen to the left's warnings, we're so accustomed to, oh, it will undermine public education, as opposed to, it will undermine public education.
Ha ha ha ha ha! This is exactly what we're looking forward to.
Public education has basically become a vehicle for the indoctrination of the left, and the more we can do to undermine public education, I say, the better.
All of you out there know MyPillow doesn't have their box stores or shopping channels anymore.
They've been part of this cancel culture.
And Mike Lindell said, hey, I'm going to just take those savings and pass them directly to you.
What a great way to load up on your Christmas presents, get it done.
And who doesn't need the products of MyPillow?
Now, you can get the lowest price in the history of MyPillow.
For the classic standard MyPillow, it's normally $69.98.
But now... $19.98 with promo code Dinesh.
And these pillows, well, I mean, they're legendary.
They won't go flat. You can wash and dry them as often as you want.
They maintain their shape. They're made in the USA. Good deals on all the other pillows.
Queen size pillows, regularly $79.98, now $24.98.
King size normally, $89.98, now $24.98.
$29.98. And MyPillow isn't just pillows.
There's something for everybody.
Over 150 products, everything from sleepwear to my new beds, all discounted.
Go to MyPillow.com or call 800-876-0227.
Use promo code Dinesh to take advantage of Mike's special offers, not just on the pillows, also on the other products.
That number again, 800-876-0227.
Or go to MyPillow.com.
Make sure to use promo code D-I-N-E-S-H Dinesh.
Guys, I'm really happy to welcome to the podcast Congressman Matt Gaetz.
He represents the 1st District of Florida.
He's a member of the House Armed Services Committee and the House Judiciary Committee.
And he's got a sort of appropriately named podcast.
It's called the Firebrand Podcast.
And this is really why the left is so nervous and I would say terrified of Matt Gaetz, because he really is willing to step out there and be a firebrand podcast.
Let's start, Matt, if I may.
Well, welcome to the podcast. Thanks for joining me.
Really glad you're able to do this.
I'm thankful, Dinesh, but I have to say, how has it been so long?
You and I, for years, have been on panels together on other news networks.
It's certainly special to have occasion to join you on your podcast.
And you may not know this, but you have like a cult following among congressional Hill staffers.
They all live on your Rumble channel so that you curate all the news of the day for them.
So good to be among the Dinesh guests.
Well, this is awesome. Thank you so much for that comment.
And hey, look, you know, the left has been going after you and they were salivating at this idea of, oh, we got Matt Getz.
He's being investigated in a sex trafficking scheme.
And then we find out, this was just a couple of weeks ago, That a Florida businessman, this is Stephen Alford, has pleaded guilty to trying to shake down your dad for $25 million.
I mean, it's an extremely bizarre case.
Evidently, he was claiming that he could get you a pardon.
He was also claiming that he was going to...
Do a rescue of Robert Levinson, the former FBI agent who disappeared in Iran and is believed dead.
I mean, you must feel a little bit in a surreal world with all these absurd allegations.
Talk about the case briefly and a little bit about whether you feel at least a partial sense of vindication that someone is being held accountable here.
I know it must have sounded very strange to people who don't like me, even people who do like me, when I told folks that these false allegations about me were rooted in an extortion effort to try to get $25 million out of my family to rescue an American spy named Bob Levinson who they claimed was kidnapped in Iran.
And what struck me about that as so bizarre Is that when Robert Mueller was the head of the FBI, they ran this exact same play on a Russian oligarch named Oleg Deripaska.
They went to Oleg Deripaska and said, gosh, you might have some problems with the United States government, and you can solve those problems if you furnish $25 million to go rescue Bob Levinson.
And Deripaska actually did that.
He forked over the $25 million, and then they blamed him in the Russia hoax anyway, and there was no rescue of Bob Levinson.
And so it was bizarre to see that same almost deep state mad lib run against me.
Of course, my family would never pay a bribe.
We would never solicit anything like that at all.
And so we went to some of the local folks in our local FBI in Northwest Florida who we believed would be able to pursue this investigation.
They did. They made an arrest.
They obtained a guilty plea.
I think there is more law enforcement activity to come in the extortion case.
And, you know, I'm grateful for those individuals here.
I'm glad they were able to do their work seemingly without manipulation from big DOJ in Washington because, as you and I know, there's a whole lot of politics emanating out of big DOJ. And I don't say that in relation to my case.
I say it in relation to the domestic terrorism tags that have been placed on parents who've shown up to school board meetings.
And We really deserve law enforcement in this country that simply investigates crimes and doesn't investigate politicians, political leaders or other just figures in society that they don't like.
You imply, in this particular case, you're quoted saying that Alfred wasn't acting alone.
DOJ is having him take the fall to protect their own.
Do you think that in this case, well, not only were there more people involved, but was the government trying to use the case properly?
to discredit you and go after you.
Certainly the media was running with all these accusations, all hinging upon the premise that you are under some sort of investigation.
Where does that investigation, if it even exists, stand right now?
Well, I don't know what I don't know.
What I do know is that in the media amplification of these lies, we actually had a Project Veritas video Obtained from a CNN director saying, look, we know that this stuff about Gates will hurt him if we just keep running the stories.
And we're doing this because he's effective, because he's so conservative, because he gets in the way of the passing of the Democrat agenda.
And so the motive is clear.
The method is clear.
The ongoing Investigations of this extortion should occur.
They should not be interrupted by anyone at the Department of Justice.
And what I know for a fact is that other people were involved.
There was a former intelligence officer named Bob Kent who quite literally delivered the extortion documents to my father and made the demands.
And then there was a former DOJ official who Who was to receive the initial tranche of money for this bribe.
And those two individuals need to be held accountable.
There's also the case of an individual named Jake Novak.
He is the broadcast media relations director at the Israeli consulate in New York.
And there are text messages that the government of Israel has acknowledged are authentic, Where Jake Novak, while he's employed by the Israeli consulate, is talking to Scott Adams, the political commentator, about how they're going to get my dad to fund this $25 million extraction of Bob Levinson.
And I'm still very unclear as to what Jake Novak's involvement was.
The government of Israel has come out and said they were not involved in this, anything Mr.
Novak was doing. He was doing on his own time, but it certainly raises some serious questions about why an official at a foreign consulate was involved in a scheme that has now resulted in a guilty plea for extortion.
And as I understand it, the Levinson family has said that they believe Bob Levinson is dead, right?
So isn't there something a little bit insane about this, about let's go free this guy who we're not even sure is alive anymore?
I mean, I know there are many members of the Levinson family and they might hold different views and I certainly don't speak for them.
them, I don't know them.
What I do know is that this was a specific dollar amount and a specific demand and a specific cover story that had been run years ago by Robert Mueller against a Russian oligarch.
And then the exact same story for the exact same dollar amount for the exact same American spy is somehow the reason that someone who with connections to the intelligence community, a former DOJ official and this fraud feeser who's now pled guilty, all were in concert around to try to, I think, maybe get me to do something that would show evidence of guilt or culpability.
When that's not true, that would never happen.
This is all rooted in a series of lies, and it's just my hope that justice will continue to prevail.
I'm glad there's been a guilty plea.
I do feel partly vindicated in that regard, but I also feel frustrated That there are additional people who clearly were animating these lies and spreading them that I think still have to be held to account.
When we come back, I want to pivot and talk to Matt Gaetz about the future of the Republican Party and his vision for it.
Debbie and I just saw a movie that's very powerful, very inspirational, we want to tell you about.
It's from Lionsgate, and it's also from the team that brought you the movie I Can Only Imagine.
And this is a new film. It's called American Underdog.
It's based on the inspirational, true story of Kurt and Brenda Warner.
Now, passed over by the NFL as a quarterback out of college, Kurt Warner found himself stocking grocery shelves to help support Brenda and her two kids, all while trying to hold on to his fading dream of becoming an NFL quarterback.
Here's a short clip. This is an uplifting story.
It demonstrates anything is possible when you have faith, you have family, you have determination.
It stars Zachary Levi, Anna Paquin, and Dennis Quaid.
It's called American Underdog, rated PG, parental guidance suggested, in theaters everywhere, Christmas Day.
I'm back with Congressman Matt Gaetz.
Matt, you said in the last segment that the guys at CNN, one of the reasons they hate you is because you're effective.
And I want to start by asking you a little bit about your temperament, because it seems like a lot of Republicans, they're crouched under the desk, metaphorically speaking.
They're scared of the media.
They wouldn't take the kind of heat that you've been subjected to, even in the case we've been talking about.
Do you think that you are just wired a little differently than the typical Republican?
Or is there kind of a lesson that this is the way that we Republicans can effectively take on the media and not be intimidated, which seems to be a natural stance of so many members of the GOP? Well, there is a school mentality among Republicans in Congress that if you don't swim too far away from the big fish,
if you stay close, stay tight, and don't get noticed much, then you're unlikely to be preyed upon by the lobby corps, by the media, by the globalist institutions that are always seeking to reinforce their agenda at the expense of the American people.
Definitely, I am wired differently.
I don't say that to be self-laudatory.
It's just an observation.
Because I think that we actually don't have to sell out if we just do what we told people we would do when we ran for office.
But unfortunately, the orientation into Congress tells you that if you give your calendar to the leadership, if you give your vote card to the lobby corps, Life is pretty good for you, and you don't really have to endure the risk that appends the activity that forces change.
Now, there are many Republicans who believe that we're going to be taking the majority, Dinesh, and I want to make sure that we're worthy of the majority.
It's likely Joe Biden will still be the president.
I know Kamala Harris checks his pulse every time she shakes his hand, but it's likely he'll still be there in a Republican majority.
I don't believe that we ought to do a rerun of the John Boehner, Paul Ryan strategy of just passing bills that we know Joe Biden will veto, calling it a moral victory.
I think they put the repeal of Obamacare on...
On President Obama's desk like, you know, 60 times.
He vetoed it every time.
And then they didn't have the guts when they had unified control of the government to put the same bill on President Trump's desk.
So here's my competing alternative vision.
Convert every committee into an oversight committee.
Ensure that every chairman has investigations that are fair, just, proper, but that we are dogged and determined in pursuing them.
In almost every committee in the Congress, we can see where the Biden administration is engaging in fraud and corruption.
And rather than passing bills and holding hands and praising bipartisanship, we ought to go after it.
At the Armed Services Committee, where I serve, we ought to be going after the extent to which critical race theory and wokeism is harming readiness in our military and how vaccine mandates are harming readiness.
In the Judiciary Committee, we could look at the Department of Justice's targeting of parents who show up at school board meetings.
Even in the Education Committee, they should be looking at the Biden Center at UPenn that took all that money from the Chinese Communist Party, didn't disclose it, and then really ran their government in exile.
I think that if we had that approach, we would actually excite our voters and show them that we will do something for them if we get the full control of I think that if we had that approach, we would actually excite our voters and show them that we will do something for them if we get the full control of the government that is necessary to act.
What do you think, Matt, of the idea?
I mean, it seemed to me a very troubling precedent when Democrats got together and started voting to throw Republicans off the Republican seats off of committees.
So Marjorie Taylor Greene, you're off your committees.
Paul Gosar, you're off your committees.
Now, isn't it a fact that the only way to stop this kind of nonsense is for Republicans to not only do the same thing, but to escalate?
If Republicans have a majority, let's start by throwing 10 Democrats off their committees, and they'll learn extremely quickly, because it doesn't appear like appeals to justice, or this is not the right thing to do, guys, or op-eds in National Review Online about civility are really getting us very much, are they? No, I do think that they have likely made Marjorie Taylor Greene the most powerful member of the Republican Congress by throwing her off committees.
If they had to do it again, they'd probably put her on all the committees to try to keep her busy so she wouldn't be engaging in some of the rigorous oversight that she's engaged in now, exposing a lot of truths about the January 6th detainees.
What Republicans ought to do, why stop at 10, Dinesh?
I think the Republican Speaker of the House ought to take suggestions from Democrats as to who they would like on committees, but we ought to place all the Democrats on all the committees.
By the way, that's not unprecedented.
That's what we do in the state of Florida.
In our Florida legislature, the minority makes recommendations to the Speaker about who they'd like on various committees, and the Speaker can either accept those recommendations, reject them, or modify them in part.
And so, if I were Speaker of the House, I would be very eager to take Nancy Pelosi's suggestions, but I would give her no power to put even a single of her members on committee without my approval because that's the way they've treated our members in some cases.
What about the business about January 6th?
I mean, it seems to me that in order to fortify the original and I think preposterous claims, this was a coup, this was an insurrection, the left has been really destroying the lives of these ordinary citizens, in many cases non-violent.
In some cases, these are guys who, yeah, they pepper sprayed the cops, but what we don't know is whether the cops pepper sprayed them and attacked them first.
What do we do at this point to unravel the narrative of January 6th?
Not the false narrative, but to bring out the truth about January 6th.
And why is the Republican Party?
With a few exceptions, virtually all Republicans have run away from this particular topic.
They're basically letting these guys die on the field.
Is it part of your vision not just to have...
A new strategy, but also kind of a new combative spirit that doesn't leave people to rot in the way that evidently the Democrats feel comfortable with in this case.
Well, I'm no one's lawyer.
I'm no one's defender. Each case ought to be decided individually, and if people were violent, we have a criminal justice system to resolve that.
What I object to is when there's a group of people being treated differently and sort of a one-off as a consequence of politics, and I'm worried that's exactly what's happening with the January 6th detainees.
We were in a recent Republican strategy session, Dinesh, behind closed doors, and Leader McCarthy stood up before everyone and said, The polling shows us that the American people believe that the treatment of the January 6th issue is partisan.
And so please stop talking about it.
Instead, let's go talk about inflation.
And it begged the question, well, Leader McCarthy, why do you think people see this as partisan?
It's because we've been talking about it.
It's because we've been showing folks How circumstances are different for people charged with the very same offenses or who committed the very same offenses in different parts of the country in different circumstances based on a different political perspective.
And so I actually think we have to continue to show the American people that the radical, dangerous left that is in charge right now, they don't want to just go after the January 6th detainees or a certain group of members of Congress.
That's just the front end of the wave.
Most of them want to destroy most of us.
And I think having that frame will ignite that combative spirit to get out there in elections, to win races we need to win, and then when we take power through those democratic means to use the institution of Congress not as a platform for theatrical committee performances, but instead dogged, real oversight that can result in, I think, a new appreciation for For the danger that these people really pose to our nation.
If I can sum up, and I'm not sure I'm using an actual real word, we actually need to de-pensify the Republican Party, and I think you're helping us to do that.
Thank you very much, Matt Ketz, for joining me on the podcast.
Thanks so much, Dinesh.
It's a pleasure. Want to give a really cool Christmas present to your loved one?
Well, how about giving them a new iPhone?
That's right. Pure Talk has iPhone 12 starting at just $479 through the end of the year.
And yes, they have the 13s too.
I switched to Pure Talk.
I'm getting great nationwide 5G coverage.
Yes, it's the same coverage as the big guys.
And you can too. Huge savings.
The average family saves over $800 a year.
Now, that's just smart. I wouldn't tell you to use a service I'm not completely happy with.
Make the switch with PureTalk's 30-day risk-free guarantee.
You have nothing to lose.
You can get unlimited talk, text, and 6 gigs of data for just $30 a month.
And like I said, the iPhone 12, like mine, take a look, $479.
Now, go to puretalk.com, shop for the plan and phone that's right for you, and enter promo code SAVEHALF. You'll save 50% off your first month and you'll save on a new phone.
That's puretalk.com, promo code SAVEHALF. Pure Talk is simply smarter wireless.
Some restrictions apply.
See site for details. Even as Joe Biden mumbles and bumbles and Kamala Harris cackles, the world is changing and not for the better.
The world, by the way, has been largely what scholars called a unipolar world.
Ever since the early 1990s, once the Soviet Union collapsed, the United States became indisputably the world's sole superpower.
And it held that position quite clearly for almost 30 years.
There was an effort under Obama for the United States to be, you may say, a reluctant unipolar power, but it still was a unipolar power.
There was no serious rival on the scene.
And what you have now is the emergence of very dangerous rivals, and these dangerous rivals are locking arms with each other.
So most recently, we see Russia and China.
And by the way, they both have their eye on something.
In the case of Russia, Putin has his eye on the Ukraine.
In the case of China, China has its eye on Taiwan.
And in both cases, these countries think that they have their eye on something that is already theirs.
They're not even seeing it.
They don't claim that it is aggression, per se.
They go, well, this is actually part of what was always ours.
It somehow got to break away, and all we are looking to do is take it back.
Russia denies, of course, it's planning to invade Ukraine, just as China denies it's planning to invade Taiwan.
But let's just remember, when these things happen, they can happen very rapidly.
Now, Putin and Xi are cementing their partnership.
They just got together and they basically decided that they have a common enemy.
Guess who? The United States.
They're saying that the United States is, quote, under the guise of democracy and human rights interfering in the internal affairs of both China and Russia.
And I would have to agree that a lot of the rhetoric of the Biden administration on democracy and human rights is nonsensical.
It has no credibility, in part because those principles are not being respected here in America.
And so what's going on is Russia and China are making all kinds of partnerships.
They're striking lucrative deals, especially on energy.
They're planning some space projects together.
And it is not out of the question that there will be a mutual defense alliance in which Russia and China and we...
We can also expect Iran to be part of this because Iran brings with it the oil wealth of some of the Persian Gulf countries, including Qatar.
So we're looking at, I've called it before, kind of a new axis of evil, Russia, China, Iran.
And the United States is just whistling past all this.
I mean, we've basically got a Nero-style fiddler in the White House, and he's fiddling while the country burns.
And it's burning at many different levels, but it's also burning in the sense that it is essentially throwing away It's global advantage.
It's giving up its unipolar status.
And what that means is we're going to be moving toward, I don't think this is really avoidable, but it didn't have to happen this fast, toward a multipolar world with a number of powerful countries.
And what makes the world dangerous for us is that a number of the bad guys, a number of the big countries that have hegemonic and imperialist ambitions can make treaties with each other and form a pact That becomes a very dangerous pact for the future.
This danger may or may not be realized under Biden.
I think some of it will, because Biden is so weak, he's so bumbling, he's essentially, you know, a president depends.
And this is not something that's likely to send a chill of fear down the spine of either Putin or Xi.
Breaking news. Have you heard?
U.S. consumer prices soared 6.8% compared to last year.
That's the biggest increase since 1982.
Hey, we need to protect our investments from this crazy, out-of-control administration, and we're not going to have a whole lot left for the future.
We need to protect our I buy my gold from Birch Gold.
It's the only company I trust and recommend.
And when you buy gold from Birch Gold by December 23rd, They'll send you free gold for every $10,000 you purchase.
It's the first time they've ever offered free gold.
With thousands of satisfied customers, an A-plus rating with the Better Business Bureau, you can trust Birch Gold to protect your savings.
Text Dinesh to 989898 to claim eligibility for their free gold with purchase offer by December 23rd.
Again, text Dinesh to 989898 and protect your savings today.
While Attorney General Merrick Garland, through this network of surveillance, is trying to monitor parents, in some sense is tagging them or classifying them as a danger to the community.
Why? Because they're questioning teachers, they're questioning what's happening at school boards.
And while this is going on, apparently there are some school board officials who are kind of, you may say, taking the law or taking the surveillance into their own hands.
Here's a real creep.
His name is Jan Michael Greenberg.
And he was the president of the school board in Scottsdale, Arizona.
So guess what?
This guy, along with his dad, a...
The two of them decided to spy on parents who are critical of the school board.
There's actually a video, believe it or not, circulating on social media in which this guy, John Michael Greenberg, is boasting about the fact...
That he is spying on these parents, and he says he has a private investigator who is, quote, writing down all of their license plates.
So when the parents show up at the school board meeting, they park their cars, and evidently this guy has a private investigator going through the parking lot and writing down the license plate of these parents.
So... So they're stalking the parents, basically.
And not only that, apparently he was building a dossier on the parents, which contained their social security numbers, which contained where he could get them mortgage documents, divorce papers, personal background, and photographs of their children.
So think about what this guy is doing.
He's creating basically blackmail dossiers.
Because he's able to say, listen, if you don't back down, I'm going to release this information to the media.
It's going to be very unpleasant for you.
I mean, it's a little creepy that this is happening in America.
And so some parents found out about this, and they were, needless to say, Wild about it.
And so there have been protests.
Parents have been demanding that this guy resign.
In fact, parents filed a complaint with the Scottsdale Police Department, which is investigating whether any privacy laws have been broken.
And here's the good news.
The Scottsdale, Arizona Governing School Board got together and And they have removed this guy.
They have fired him.
And the vote was four to one.
And guess who voted against it?
Well, the guy who was fired, John Michael Greenberg.
I'm still for myself.
I'm going to cast a dissenting vote.
I think there was nothing wrong with maintaining this dossier on the parents.
Why not? After all, call me big brother, you know?
I mean, these people are creeps.
They're freaks. And what makes the whole thing so strange is they're riding their moral high horse.
This guy probably thinks, oh yeah, these parents are domestic terrorists.
You know, I'm doing the Lord's work.
So these are people out of control, unchecked power.
They don't respect the boundaries of their own authority.
They've forgotten that they're deputized to act in the interest of the parents and their children.
And the interests of the parents and the children do not diverge.
They're actually identical.
But it's good news that this guy's been busted.
It's good news that he's being investigated.
I hope that in addition to being fired, he also gets prosecuted.
The parents are rising up.
The bureaucrats fear the parents, and all of this bodes very well for the future of education in America.
You know, my mom was kind of a health nut ever since I was a kid, Dinesh.
And also my brother and sister, Shashi, Nandini, you've got to eat your fruits and vegetables.
And we're like, ah! You know, especially with the vegetables.
None of us were fans.
But in any case, that's true pretty much everywhere, right?
I mean, very few Americans actually eat the recommended servings of produce every day.
I guess part of it is the taste.
Part of it is it's difficult to prepare that much produce daily.
Well, there's a solution now.
It's called balance of nature.
When you take balance of nature, you're giving your body all the nutrients it needs to increase your cells' vitality.
So get the nutrition that can only be found in whole natural fruits and vegetables.
Debbie and I, we take 10 daily servings of the fruits and veggies right out of these bottles.
Take a look, all in six small capsules.
There are no trouble swallowing.
Always fresh, nothing artificial.
They smell great. And Debbie swears by this, the fiber and spice.
I'm taking it now also.
We really like it. So, 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's 800-246-8751.
Or go to balanceofnature.com and use discount code AMERICA. The January 6th Commission, this is the Pelosi Commission, the stacked commission, is pushing out Liz Cheney as their frontman.
It's sort of like, here's our token Republican, and she's going to tell you the truth about what really happened.
And Liz Cheney, of course, released these texts from Hannity and Laura Ingraham and others to Trump, basically saying, hey, get those people out of the Capitol.
And the strange thing is that Liz Cheney, in full pomposity, thought she's making a great point, namely that, oh, look, all these people are warning Trump.
But, of course, it undercuts the left's narrative that the right was right behind the insurrection.
The right was all in favor of taking over the Capitol.
The right, the broad Republican Party, supports some kind of coup.
It's all nonsense.
And ironically, Liz Cheney is too dumb to see that her reading of these texts undercuts her own point.
Now, Debbie and I have been talking about, well, the case of this guy, Peter Schwartz.
This is a January 6th defendant who wrote a fairly detailed and impassioned letter about his circumstances.
And, you know, it kind of got to you.
It really did.
I mean, you know...
Whatever he did, whatever he was charged with, I think it was pepper spraying the Capitol Police officers.
We don't really know what happened in that circumstance.
We don't know if they were being gassed, the crowd.
We did see some footage and it looks like the crowd was actually being sprayed or hit with something for not doing anything.
He's not the easiest case because he is accused of a violent offense.
But what you're saying is we don't know the circumstances.
We don't know what he really did.
Or the circumstances behind his reaction to what he did.
But I will say this, and I told you this morning, I said, listen, I don't care if it's Antifa, I don't care if it's BLM, I don't care if it's a serial killer.
They do not deserve to be put into a 8x10 cell.
With no due process.
So this guy goes into detail about the conditions that he's having to endure.
Well, first of all, even his arrest.
I mean, they're dragging him up the stairs and his wife, you know, they handcuff them both.
He was out taking a smoke and all of a sudden, you know, guns drawn.
They shackle his ankles and his wife, you know, and they drag him down the stairs or up the stairs or whatever.
It was very descriptive. Very horrifying and really just outrageous.
I mean, they're wrecking the lives of people before they're even tried.
Before they're even tried. So, you know, so he was talking about the conditions in his confinement, 8x10 cell, solitary confinement.
He's been wearing the same contact lenses since January, like, I don't know.
January 7th, I think he said.
Wearing the same ones.
Bathing. I don't even think he's bathed.
He is not allowed to even pray, go to a clergyman and ask, you know, to have a Bible or whatever.
He's not allowed to do that.
He hasn't actually been allowed to see an attorney since, I think, the very beginning.
No family visitations.
Listen, I, you know, I told you this morning, the Guantanamo Bay prisoners are not treated this way.
Yeah. I mean, this is a, first of all, this is a couple things to say about it.
One is, this is a violation of the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights, which I have in front of me.
This was, by the way, proclaimed in 1948.
It's a statement of universal rights, so it goes beyond the U.S. Constitution, and it's very clear.
I mean, it lays out things that you can't do.
Let me just read a few things.
No one shall be subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment.
Right there. There you go. All are equal before the law.
Ha ha ha ha ha. Not so much.
And are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law.
No. Absurd. Three.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention, or exile.
I mean, the right to a speedy trial.
Where's this speedy trial? Everyone charged with a penal offense has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a public trial in which he has all the guarantees necessary for his defense.
I mean, they're withholding...
Yeah. Discovery. Clear violation of human rights.
And so, I mean, it's almost like we need to call on, call upon, how embarrassing would this be, call upon the UN to investigate the United States for systematic human rights abuses.
And by the way, if this all seems rather abstract, here is a U.S. district court judge.
This is Royce Lamberth.
He recently ordered Christopher Worrell removed from the D.C. jail because he says the conditions are, quote, deplorable.
I mean, he uses that word. They're deplorable and they're, quote, beyond belief.
And he says his court has zero confidence that the D.C. jail will provide—this is, by the way, a guy who has cancer, who needs cancer treatment, who also needed surgery.
And so the judge sent the marshals in, and the marshals found out that these people weren't getting proper food.
They weren't even getting proper access to water.
Yep. And we're talking now about the D.C. jail under Warden Wanda Patton and the director of the D.C. Department of Corrections, Quincy Booth.
I think this should be part of the Republican platform to have these people indicted.
They need to be indicted.
They need to be charged. They need to be locked up.
In fact, it would be really great to put them under the identical conditions, give them a taste of their own medicine.
Well... Show them what it's like to be in their jail.
Yeah, yeah. Well, I don't know about that, but they do need to be...
Held accountable. Held accountable for what they've done.
That's what I'm really saying. You know, and I was also making the point that in Venezuela, you know, 2013, all of these patriots went to the capital in Caracas.
It's called the Presidential Palace.
And they, too, were protesting...
What they believed to be an illegitimate election.
So they went to the Capitol and they were accosted by the Capitol Police, tear gassed, rubber bullets, you name it.
And they also were arrested and they also were thrown in jail with no due process.
And I thought, oh my goodness, this is horrific.
I was actually working with some Venezuelans to see if we could get the UN's attention for this.
And then here we are, the United States of America.
I mean, I remember you and I had meetings with Ted Cruz and Devin Nunes and others to see what the State Department and the U.S. government could do to address the conditions in Venezuela.
And little did you know that they would be transplanted almost identically.
Almost identically. And for the same reason.
For the same exact reason.
In fact, you know, I saw a photo of a young man in Venezuela in about, I think it was taken in 2013.
And he had the Venezuelan flag draped on him.
Very much like Ashley Babbitt had the Trump flag draped on her.
So these are patriots.
These are not insurrectionists.
These are not terrorists.
These are people that believe in the Constitution, in their country's Constitution.
And when they see something that is just not right, they have the right to protest.
Exactly. And what's happening here, and the full truth about January 6th, I don't believe, has come out yet.
Julie Kelly and others are on this.
but what they're trying to show, and it could very well be, not only FBI infiltration, not only provocation, but in a sense, an effort to lure the crowd into the Capitol, unobstructed in some cases, and then set upon them, beat them, attack them, and then when these guys try to fight back or block these blows that are being rained on them by the cops, accuse them of violence, accuse them of striking a police officer, because in many cases, when you look at the details,
you see things like, this guy raised his arm to block a police shield.
Well, the shield was from the police.
The police were obviously using the shield to strike out at people.
So all of this needs to be documented and laid out.
And this presumption that the government is right, I think we're learning from this case, as are so many others.
As you know, Democrats never let a crisis go to waste.
And sometimes they create them.
We're here, Debbie and I, we want to talk about relief factor.
And we, you know, when we first encountered relief factor, I sort of didn't really believe it because the idea is, you know, as you get older, you get kind of, you get a pain in your arm, you get a pain in your leg, and you think that that's kind of a normal thing.
And we're getting older. And we're getting older.
Yeah, yeah. Or you just, you know, you get a big bump and you're like, well, you know, I kind of have to wait for this to go away.
The idea that you can sort of Take something and be free of pain.
I mean, what a great gift to people.
And you're a walking proof of it.
Well, you know, when we talked to the founder of Relief Factor, Basically, he said it's inflammation in your body that's causing the pain.
So the source of the pain is the inflammation.
And I have what's called, you know, frozen shoulder bursitis.
And the inflammation was so severe that I thought, hey, I have nothing to lose.
I want to just try this out.
And sure enough, about two weeks into it, The pain started going away and I was able to lift my arm again and exercise and all those things that are super important.
So I think that if you want to get out of pain, you need to do what I did.
I mean, the proof is in the pudding and the beauty of it is you just try it.
Now, Relief Factor is offering a great deal.
They've got this three-week, it's called the Quick Start.
It's a discounted price, $19.95.
I mean, how crazy is that?
So go to relieffactor.com or call 833-690-7246.
That number again is 833-690-7246 or go to relieffactor.com.
You'll feel the difference.
With Christmas just around the corner, I want to do a little bit more on Christian apologetics and also about the meaning of Christmas.
And what I want to do today is talk a little bit about the Lord's Prayer, the Our Father.
Now, there are some people who prefer, you know, personal prayer.
I like to say my own prayer, and there's nothing wrong with that.
That's actually just fine.
And these are people who think that somehow standard prayers or written prayers are somehow too formulaic.
And they go, you know, I just want to say what's in my heart.
That's all God cares about.
Well, not really.
I say that because when Jesus was asked by the apostles, Lord, you know, teach us how to pray, he didn't say, well, just say what's in your heart.
He actually came up with a prayer.
And this is out of Jesus' own mouth, so we should pay attention to what Jesus says is, if you will, the perfect prayer.
It's the only prayer that Jesus taught.
And for me, it is an exemplary prayer.
I try to say it once a day, at least.
And it's a prayer with a lot of depth.
I mean, every phrase in it has some sort of meaning, and I thought it would be interesting to just do a brief reflection on what the meaning is.
So here we go. Our Father.
What's interesting to me about that is that God relates to us as a father.
There's a patriarchal implication here.
It's not our mother.
It's our father. God is our protector.
He's our provider. He provides a certain kind of stern oversight that, in some ways, dads provide, I think, more than moms.
I mean, when I was a kid, for example, you know, there was a guy down our street.
We called him Jerry Baldy, which is, I guess, an unkind name.
In fact, to this day, I don't know his last name.
Baldy. That's what we called him.
And we would throw water balloons at him from my house, me and my cousins.
And sometimes he'd show up at our door, and my mom was always like...
No, these kids are too wonderful.
They would never do something like that.
But my dad was like, what was the angle at which the balloon was thrown?
Are you confident it came from our...
My dad was much more willing to listen to the evidence.
And that's how God is.
He is not just a merciful, but a just God.
Okay, who art in heaven?
What does that mean? It means that while God is everywhere, God has a kind of natural abode.
It's also a reminder to us that heaven is our ultimate destination.
In other words, we're pilgrims on the earth.
We're headed someplace else.
God's reign is always the best reign.
It's the best form of government.
And you may say, wait a minute, monarchy is the best form of government?
Yes, exactly. When monarchy is allied with infinite wisdom and infinite justice, it is the best form of government.
And that's why, although it's not a good form of government for human beings ruling each other, it is the perfect form of government for God, who is our monarch.
Thy will be done. Very important.
All prayers, by the way, should end with this.
Why? Because we always think our way is better than God's way.
God give us this. God do this for us.
But God knows best.
And so we should always pray, God, I want this.
God, my heart wants that.
But thy will be done because thy will is better than my will.
On earth as it is in heaven.
So earth is not the same as heaven, right?
The kingdom of God is not of this world, Jesus says.
And on earth we operate under natural laws, which is the laws of science, of physics, and we also operate under human free will, which generates a whole bunch of evil in the world.
Now, what this is telling us is that we want God's will ultimately to operate on earth as we know it operates unchallenged in heaven.
We want our will to be in conformity with God's will.
Give us today our daily bread today.
To me, what this means is that everything we get, we get from God.
It's not just about your daily bread, your meals.
And, you know, I know atheists go, wait a minute, what do you mean God?
I worked for it. I did this.
I did that. Yeah, but who gave you your intelligence?
Who gave you your strength?
Who gave you life itself?
The point is that God ultimately, by creating the world and creating us, is responsible even for the things that we, quote, do for ourselves.
And forgive us our sins.
Very important.
This is the heart of Christianity.
Christianity is defined by forgiveness.
Notice that forgiveness is not really a key concept in any other religion.
It's a distinguishing feature of Christianity.
And the power of forgiveness is it reconciles God's justice to His mercy.
It's not an overlooking of sin.
It's not like it's no big deal.
No, it is a big deal.
And that's why forgiveness is so powerful, because while acknowledging the gravity of the offense, without trying to minimize it, Forgiveness says that God ultimately is willing to overlook it, look the other way, in a sense, erase the significance of the sin.
This is why, by the way, we need Christ's substitutionary atonement.
As we forgive those who sin against us.
Now, this is a little bit of a zinger in here.
Because the as we forgive those who sin against us is telling us, listen, God's forgiveness is a little bit conditional.
We don't like to think of that.
It doesn't say God's going to forgive us, and by the way, we kind of hope that you will too.
It is as the one is linked to the other.
If we don't forgive others...
We can't really claim God's forgiveness.
And on the good side of it, when we forgive others, we are acting in imitation of God.
And that's the beauty of human forgiveness.
And lead us not into temptation.
This has mystified me.
Ever since I was a kid, I thought, why would God lead us into temptation?
Why would we ask God not to, you know, don't do this, when God wouldn't want to do it in any case?
Right? What I think would lead us not into temptation is a confession of human weakness.
It's a way of saying, really, that, you know, as human beings, it's easier for us to avoid temptation than to resist it.
If temptation is in front of us, it's a harder fight.
But if you steer yourself away from temptation, and that's what we're asking God, don't even put us into the circumstances where temptation is present.
And that's going to be the easiest way for us to avoid it.
And deliver us from evil.
And the beauty of this is that this is already accomplished.
In an ultimate sense, God has already delivered us from evil.
Why? Because the ultimate evil is damnation.
It's eternal death.
And God has already, through the sacrifice of Jesus, He has already given us the grace to avoid that ultimate evil.
All we have to do, really, is to accept it.
Now, there is evil in the world, of course.
But let's remember, when it says, deliver us from evil...
There's a double meaning here.
Deliver us from being the recipients of evil.
Let's say of human evil caused by someone else.
But what we often don't see is deliver us from doing evil.
We're also capable of being the evil doers.
And we're asking God in this prayer...
Not to do that. And then the prayer concludes the way I think that in the correct posture we should have towards God, which is a posture of praise and gratitude, and that is for thine is the kingdom and the glory forever and ever.
▲
Export Selection