All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 28, 2022 - Dinesh D'Souza
50:07
EMPTY SHELVES Dinesh D’Souza Podcast Ep259
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Debbie and I are going to talk today about empty shelves.
Why is it that basic stuff from home furnishings, basic provisions, even food, pet food, is unavailable?
Who's to blame for this?
There's new developments in the John Durham investigation.
I'll tell you about those.
I want to expose the Biden DOJ continually lying about the threat posed by the January 6th protesters.
This particular episode involves Kamala Harris and Mike Pence.
Interesting case in the Finland courts.
They're prosecuting Christians for, as it turns out, articulating Christian beliefs.
And I'll draw on The Economist Shumpeter's classic work, The Entrepreneur, to talk about the distinctive features of the entrepreneur.
This is the Dinesh D'Souza Podcast.
The times are crazy in a time of confusion, division, and lies.
We need a brave voice of reason, understanding, and truth.
This is the Dinesh D'Souza Podcast.
Censorship has become a regular feature of life in America.
You experience it.
I experience it. We're all under the threat of it.
And the censorship that we're dealing with is part of a larger current of illiberalism, the overturning of classical liberal precepts, the idea that you can have free assembly, the idea that you have a right of conscience.
These kinds of rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights are somehow being challenged in the practical application of American life.
And the question is, who's to blame for this?
Who's actually pushing this?
Well, there's a new survey that is reported in the current issue of City Journal.
It basically says that the answer is young people.
Young people are the vanguard of what the author calls cultural socialism.
Now, the author, Eric Kaufman, whom I've had on the podcast, a very smart guy, draws a distinction between cultural socialism and cultural liberalism.
Cultural liberalism, of course, is the idea that even though we have a democracy, majority rule, there are individual rights, and the majority cannot overrun or trespass on the rights of the minority or of the individual.
This is cultural liberalism.
That's why we talk about liberal democracy.
But it looks like we're moving away from liberal democracy toward this idea of cultural socialism.
And cultural socialism says that some other collective need, let's just say protecting minorities from feeling bad or anti-discrimination.
Anti-discrimination viewed here not in terms of individual rights.
I have a right to be treated as an individual, but in terms of group power.
So the idea here is that you can override individual rights.
You don't have to protect.
Because we're trying to achieve these collective goals.
Now, here's something interesting.
It turns out that a majority, a slim majority, but a majority nevertheless of people under 30, seem to prefer cultural socialism to cultural liberalism.
So, let's look at some examples.
65% of Americans over 55 oppose Google's decision to fire this guy, James Damore, because he put out a paper questioning Google's commitment to so-called gender equity.
Now, under 30, 59 to 41%, they support it.
Yeah, fire the guy. Gina Carano was kicked off of Star Wars for her social media posts.
The CEO of Mozilla was forced out in 2014 for opposing gay marriage.
Now again, if you look at older groups, they think this is horrible.
This is a violation of individual rights.
But if you look at younger people, they're like, well, we think it's okay.
We think it's fine. CRT. Now, CRT here is not teaching about slavery.
It's not teaching about segregation.
It is a particular way of propagandizing young people.
In fact, it is demonizing young people who disagree with CRT, and it involves essentially the subjugation.
It's a single party line.
This is what you need to think about race.
This is what you need to think about gender.
And most young people support it.
In other words, most young people think that it's okay to propagandize, well, young people.
This is not to say that young people aren't afraid of cancel culture.
The amazing thing is that there are 45% of employees under 30 say, I might lose my job, I might get in trouble in school, I might get in trouble in college for saying the wrong thing.
So they have a nervousness about what they might say and get in trouble over it.
But even so... You might think, well, obviously, these same young people are going to be totally opposed to cancel culture.
No. It turns out, quote, that by 48% to 27%, respondents under 30% agree with this.
My fear of losing my job or reputation due to something I said or posted online is a justified price to pay to protect historically disadvantaged groups.
Wow. People are willing to, in a sense, risk themselves getting the axe.
And by the way, if you look at people over 50, they disagree by 51 to 17%.
They're like, this is crazy.
So, when you think about these online flash mobs, these pressure campaigns, these accusations of racism or homophobia or transphobia, it's being driven by the sort of younger generation.
Now, of course, where's the younger generation getting it?
It turns out they're getting it from their professors.
So you've got these left-wing professors who are propagandizing these young people.
These young people create a new environment on the campus, but don't think that that environment remains confined to the campus.
Why? Because these young people then graduate.
And who do they go work for?
They go to work for Google.
They go to the Columbia Journalism School.
They end up in media. They end up in law.
So they carry these, not liberal, but illiberal attitudes into these institutions.
And this is how the dementia of the campus is It has now become the dementia of our culture.
It started on the campus that you couldn't call Black Lives Matter a hate group.
And if you did, they would try to shut you down.
They'd try to suppress you.
It started on the campus. You can't say that transgenderism is like...
You know, some kind of a disorder.
No, you would be immediately excommunicated, ostracized, you'd get bad grades, they'd try to get you expelled.
And now that same sentiment you will find in corporate America, you'll find it in media, you'll find it in entertainment.
What this means is that the classical liberal tradition, the very liberal tradition that creates the term liberal democracy, is now under serious threat.
And the hour is a little bit late.
In fact, the author says, we urgently need to revive this lost tradition or we will lose it permanently.
Guys, the uncancellation of Mike Lindell is underway.
It's occurring because of you and because of me.
And the way we uncancell Mike Lindell, we give him the last laugh.
We support his products, and they happen to be great products.
And there's about 150 of them.
It's not just the pillows. It's the robes.
It's the dog bed.
It's the throws. It's the sheets.
So discounts of up to 66%, a great deal.
Call 1-800-876-0227 or go to MyPillow.com to get these discounts.
You should use promo code Dinesh.
That number again, 800-876-0227 or go to MyPillow.com.
Make sure to use promo code D-I-N-E-S-H, Dinesh.
Whenever I hear something or read something about the John Durham investigation, I always have this thought, should I cover it on the podcast?
I think about this because Durham is such a tortoise, he's such a plotter, that I'm like, where is this actually going?
Is it going to get to where it needs to go, or is it going to stop short?
And the pessimist in me says, this is going nowhere.
It's almost like one of these movies you go to where the plot is moving really slow.
And you're like, where's this going?
I mean, get on with it. And then suddenly the plot starts kind of getting good and you get excited.
You're like, wow, this is terrific.
But see, the plot can still go in one of two directions.
Terrific climax. And in this case, the terrific climax would be like Hillary Clinton in handcuffs.
Wow! Or it's like a dud.
The plot gets exciting briefly, and then it's essentially kind of a nowheresville.
And it ends not with a bang, but with a whimper.
So the latest development with Durham is this.
Let's refresh a little bit.
Durham has indicted this guy named Sussman.
And Sussman is under indictment for systematic lying.
So Sussman meets with the FBI. He says, listen, I'm just a private citizen.
I'm giving you some really valuable information you need to know.
Turns out, Sussman was actively involved in cooking up this information.
He was cooking it up with a tech executive, and the tech executive was pressuring these researchers to try to find something that links Trump to Russia.
It doesn't matter what. It doesn't matter if it holds up, but enough to kind of create an investigation.
And then the idea was, we will leak the investigation to the media.
Which is exactly what they did.
They leaked it to Franklin 4 at Slate magazine.
He went with it. Oh, there's a serious investigation underway, picked up by Natasha Bertrand of CNN. Oh, they're investigating Trump for his ties with Russia.
And all of this, all of this to benefit the Clinton campaign.
Now, Michael Sussman, a longtime established Democratic attorney, And he is working with people at the Clinton campaign.
But where Durham hasn't gone is he hasn't followed the thread inside the Clinton campaign to Hillary Clinton herself or to the top people like the attorney Mark Elias, a powerful advisor to the Democrats and currently involved in suppressing a lot of the—fighting against a lot of the voter integrity laws.
In any event, Durham hasn't pushed it all the way back to see who cooked up the idea that we could frame Trump on a completely bogus charge and then rely on a compliant FBI and a compliant media and essentially a compliant leftist network to carry out the smear.
Who was the author of that?
Not merely the executor, but the author.
Here's Durham in his usual tortoise-like style.
He apparently has been conducting a whole bunch of interviews, collected a whole bunch of records, a whole bunch of grand jury testimony.
According to his latest update, he's gotten grand jury testimony from...
Mark Elias, very good.
Former FBI general counsel James Baker.
He's interviewed a bunch of people in the CIA. Look at the network and how elaborate it is.
Durham and his team have interviewed a whole bunch of people, all listed here.
Including the so-called tech executive as to what was his role?
Did he know that this was a fabricated plot?
And also, is there anyone besides Sussman who put him up to it?
Apparently, Durham has obtained records and documents from the Clinton campaign.
The Perkins-Cooey Law Firm, Mark Elias, by the way, was a partner in that law firm.
He's now stepped down. The Hillary for America Group.
So, Durham is making the right moves.
This is like a movie in slow motion.
It takes him like eight weeks to get a document, another eight weeks to talk to one guy.
And Durham had this reputation of being a sure but steady plotter.
My only hope is that this investigation is like, you know, finished before the year 2030 and that we get to the top of it.
We get to the, let's call it the head of the snake.
And normally when I say the words the head of the snake, it's like Barack Obama's image that pops into my mind.
But in this case, it could very well be Hillary herself.
It's hard for me to believe that this frame-up was going on.
By the way, Hillary has all kinds of public statements.
Yeah, Trump was colluding with Russia.
Now, was she the unwitting dupe?
Of information that her own campaign concocted?
It's hard for me to believe. Hillary's very cunning.
She's very snake-like herself.
Very likely she's the one who cooked up the plot, a little bit like some other snakes that we know in literature and in the Bible.
Cooks up the plot, puts out the plot, lets the plot circulate, and then announces her surprise.
Oh my gosh, there's a plot!
Look over here! And drops all this in a manner calculated to damage Trump, damage his prospects as a candidate.
This whole thing, by the way, is so devious and so deceptive.
And you know what? It almost worked.
Guys, for a long time, if you got aches or pains, the only response you could do was kind of like the ouch, ouch, ouch.
There wasn't a whole lot else you could do, and aches and pains were accepted as part of the normal wear and tear of time.
But now there's a 100% drug-free solution, and it's called Relief Factor.
Relief Factor supports your body's fight against inflammation, and inflammation is the source of aches and pains.
The vast majority of people who try Relief Factor order more.
Why? Because it works for them.
Debbie's a true believer. It's been a game changer for her.
She's got this frozen shoulder.
She took relief factor. Boom, the pain is gone.
She knows if she doesn't take it regularly, the pain is going to come right back.
So she's like, I'm not going to be without this again.
Being able to lift her arm, exercise is super important to her.
Relief factor is the tool she needs.
She's glad she's got it. Now, you too can benefit.
Try it for yourself. You'll see.
Order the three-week quick start for the discounted price of only $19.95.
Go to relieffactor.com or call 833-690-7246 to find out more about this offer.
That number again, 833-690-7246 or go to relieffactor.com.
Feel the difference. There's a remarkable new development in the January 6th investigation.
By the way, I'm not going to talk about the January 6th committee.
They're genuinely investigating nothing.
They're harassing a lot of people, obtaining a lot of bank records.
I'm talking about new facts about January 6th.
Now, if you look at the cases that are winding their way through the court system, It was initially claimed in the filings of a number of January 6 defendants.
Let's note again that these defendants are charged with, quote, entering and remaining in a restricted building or grounds and disorderly conduct in a restricted building or grounds.
And the key word here is restricted.
Now, What makes a building restricted?
Many people think, well, it's because the Capitol was like officially closed.
But that is not the point here.
The reason is, if a building is closed, there needs to be some kind of sign that says, building closed, off limits.
And in fact, there was none of that.
So the charging documents don't talk about the building being closed.
They're trying to make their case against the January 6th defendants by saying two things.
One... That Kamala Harris was in the building.
So in other words, you've got a security risk posed by the presence of the designated vice presidential candidate about to become the vice president.
She's in the building. And so that creates a level of threat that makes what these guys are doing unlawful.
The building is unrestricted because of who's in it.
And second, that Mike Pence is in the building.
So you got the current vice president, the outgoing but current vice president.
He's also in the building.
He's also obviously under heavy Secret Service protection.
And so the premise that you got these two, quote, high security individuals in the building was all over the charging documents.
Now... Over the past several weeks, the DOJ began to amend its charges to concede that Kamala Harris was not, in fact, in the building.
In reality, where was Kamala Harris?
She was over at the DNC. In fact, she was at the location where the so-called two pipe bombs were allegedly planted.
By the way, that case is supposedly unsolved.
They have no idea who planted the pipe bombs, even though that building, too, is apparently under heavy security cameras, and they should have been able to solve that case, but evidently they haven't.
In any case, Kamala Harris is not in the building, and so the DOJ is like, yeah, yeah, we kind of got that wrong.
We kind of goofed.
And so they very slyly begin to change their documents and remove that claim.
But the new development is that it now appears that, quite likely, because we're not entirely sure, that Mike Pence was not in the building either.
Now, this is very telling because it sort of blows out of the water the whole concept that this was even a, quote, restricted building.
For it to be a restricted building, you would need to have someone like a Mike Pence or Kamala Harris in it.
Now, let's look at the situation involving Mike Pence.
Initially, the charging documents said Mike Pence is in the building.
Then slowly, and this is again Julie Kelly noticing this and reporting it in a recent article, she begins to notice that the documents no longer say that.
They began to imply that Mike Pence was, quote, not in the building, but in the tunnel.
He was in the tunnel leading to the building.
But evidently, there was some security footage that's beginning to come out now as particular cases go before judges that Mike Pence was not in the security tunnel either.
And so what's happening is that the DOJ is desperately trying to suppress the security footage from being released because apparently it will reveal that Mike Pence was in fact not in the building or in the tunnel.
Now, this is how devious these guys are when they do it, and I want to point out two things.
One, the DOJ is arguing that for a building to be restricted, it, quote, does not require the Secret Service protectee to be present on the grounds or in the building as long as they can suggest he was, quote, on his way to the building.
So he's not in the building, he's not in the tunnel, but he's making his way to the building.
And so they are displacing the standard that you have to show to establish the risk.
And here's the second thing they're doing.
They're asking the court to limit the cross-examination of Secret Service witnesses.
They're saying defense attorneys should not be able to ask where exactly Mike Pence was.
Why? Because where Mike Pence was is a matter of national security.
It's a state secret.
It's not... I mean, you can understand it's a state secret where someone's whereabouts are now.
But who cares what someone's whereabouts were on January 6th?
What can somebody do with that information?
Terrorists will be really interested to know.
So what? So, clearly, the national security pretext is being invoked here to prevent the defense counsel from exposing a second lie.
Not only was Kamala Harris not in the building, neither was Mike Pence.
This was not, in fact, as a practical matter, a restricted building.
And all these charges against all these defendants are sitting on a bogus premise.
What I find particularly unnerving, and Julie's made the same point, is these judges appear not scandalized by the routine lying by the DOJ. I don't know if they think that this is normal.
These are just chronic liars and we should just take it in stride.
Or if the judges are sort of...
View themselves as accessories or collaborators with the DOJ, and they take a more forgiving attitude toward DOJ lives.
But in any case, what we're seeing here is the manipulation of evidence, the putting forward of false claims, all of which, if exposed and overturned, would go a long way toward the exoneration of these poor defendants.
Do you ever read the fine print that appears when you start browsing the internet in incognito mode?
Well, it says your activity might still be visible to your employer, your school, or your internet service provider.
Now how can they even call it incognito?
To really stop people from seeing the sites you visit, you need to do what I do and use ExpressVPN.
Think about all the times you've used Wi-Fi at a coffee shop, a hotel.
Well, without ExpressVPN, every site you visit could be logged by the admin of that network.
And that's still true when you're in so-called incognito mode.
What's more, your home internet provider can also see and record your browsing data.
And in the US, they are legally allowed to sell that data to advertisers.
Now, ExpressVPN is an app that encrypts all of your network data and reroutes it through a network of secure servers so your private online activity stays just that private.
ExpressVPN works on all your devices, super easy to use.
The app has one button, tap it to connect.
Your browsing activity is secure from prying eyes.
Stop letting strangers invade your online privacy.
Protect yourself at expressvpn.com slash Dinesh.
If you use this link, expressvpn.com slash Dinesh, you'll get three extra months free.
That's expressvpn.com slash Dinesh.
Debbie and I have been talking for, well, a little while now about shortages.
And of course, I think the shortages are part of a bigger problem.
I mean, really, if you look at America, honey, I haven't told you this.
This is my favorite line of the day.
We're sort of, as Americans, we're passengers in a plane that is being flown by a decrepit and demented pilot.
You mean Biden? Yes, I mean Biden.
And I mean that there's a crew in the plane that's assisting Biden, but they're not assisting him to fly the plane.
They're assisting him in concealing his dementia from the passengers.
And what that means is if Americans think that things are going okay, well...
They've succeeded. You don't know what's going on.
You have a good reason to be worried.
Now, with regard to these shortages, which we want to talk about today, I mean, let's start by saying it's affecting us.
So we have our media room, and people go, oh, you have a media room?
Well, we're in the media business, so we do have a media room.
We sometimes will have investors come and watch a movie and so on.
So we're replacing our chairs, and this was supposed to happen, what, in August?
August of last year, and it's now scheduled, and after several delays, we're supposed to get these chairs.
Just chairs! Well, first, the first thing it was, it was a delay in the foam.
They didn't have the foam, so there was a shortage of foam.
Right. They got the foam.
And then the latest delay was the mechanics.
So in other words, you know, can't lean or whatever.
You can't fix the chair up and down.
And then the latest delay after that was that they thought that the chairs were on a truck and they evidently weren't.
So it's the transportation of the completed product.
Anyway, if this seems a little esoteric to people and we're supposed to get these chairs, we'll see if it happens, I guess, what, February 7th, something like that.
And then I'm reading articles and we...
And you were sort of outraged about the fact that people cannot buy pet food.
Right. So a couple of weeks ago, a friend of mine posted this photo of some empty shelves and she has cats.
And she was so upset because she cannot find cat food or the cat food that she normally buys.
So she was very upset about that.
So she posted a photo of that and I was like, oh, that's too bad.
You know, cat food.
You're not a fan of cats.
I like cats, but I know you don't.
But anyway, that's beside the point.
Well, I'm pretty sure the cats are very temperamental and very particular about their cuisine.
It's a little bit like their favorite restaurant is now closed and they're like...
Oh yeah, where's my food?
So that was bad.
But then I started seeing more friends talk about how they couldn't find dog food and other types of pet food.
And I was like, what?
You know, this would be a really interesting segment to do.
So on my Facebook and it's my personal Facebook page, it's not a public.
But I said, hey, guys, if you have pet food shortages in your local grocery store, can you take a photo of your shelves?
And so many people sent in photos.
I could not possibly put all of them on.
And I'm going to show you some of these photos, you know, in the podcast if you watch it on Rumble or YouTube.
Yeah. A lot of them.
And then more people started weighing in on, oh, it's not just pet food.
It's not just, you know, cat food, dog food.
I can't find cold medicine.
I can't find toilet paper.
I can't find this. I can't find that.
And so they were sending photos of that as well.
And so it is just, it's crazy because I actually, it reminds me so much of when my grand, my My aunt, she's like my grandmother, but my aunt in Venezuela would tell me, Debbie, I cannot find toilet paper in the grocery store.
I can't find milk.
I can't find chicken.
I have to go from one grocery store to another, to another, to another just to find food for the day.
And I thought that was just so foreign.
I couldn't even grasp it.
I mean, what I found strange from you telling me this was that it seemed initially that she kind of accepted it and just thought it was part of the normal hassle of life.
She almost became kind of habituated to it until the shortages became more chronic, became more severe.
The one place that she used to go to buy milk no longer had milk.
And so that's when you find yourself in socialism.
You know, the phrase made in socialism.
And for people that don't know what socialism is like, If these shortages become the common play, then you will most certainly feel it.
Now, back to the pet food. It says apparently that, apparently because of loneliness due to COVID, more people have pets.
So there's been an increase of pet ownership in America in the last two years.
Interesting, right? Really? So apparently that's caused a demand for pet food.
But look, this is not an explanation of anything.
Why? Because normally markets work, right?
People want more pet food.
Pet food companies make more pet food.
Truckers bring the pet food.
You can buy it in Walmart. You can buy it somewhere else.
So what is happening is we're seeing as a consequence, I think, of Biden incompetence, COVID restrictions, obviously truckers and other people rebelling against the forced vaccines.
So this combination of factors is Is disrupting what they call the supply chain.
Everything, everything. And I also read in Newsweek that there's baby formula, cream cheese, aluminum, chicken tenders, Lunchables, toilet paper, champagne, beer.
There's all kinds of shortages for all of those things.
Because, again, they were talking to this woman here, Courier Journal.
She's a chef from Barn 8 at Heritage Farm.
And she was basically saying the supply chain is broken down.
They can't get corn from the farmers to feed the chickens.
They can't get staff to run the farms.
They can't find an appointment to get the chicken slaughtered.
There are not enough people to drive the trucks and on and on and on it goes.
Well, now another factor that I don't think we've mentioned yet is this, that in a COVID environment where you're sending people checks and people are collecting unemployment at a level that matches what they could get paid.
Why would they work? Why would they work?
And so the so-called work shortage, again, under capitalism, there's a real solution to all this.
Markets normally communicate information.
That information sets prices.
That information dictates how many rolls of toilet paper need to be delivered to this particular Kroger or that particular giant.
This is what is breaking down.
And by the way, it officially breaks down under socialism.
Why? Because you don't have markets.
You don't have information. You have some central committee who goes, You know, we think we need so many cars next year.
We think we need so many computers next year.
And so you have some guy who is in no position to know, has no idea what's going on, might be running some data analysis, basically making wild projections.
So this is how the temporary craziness that we're living under Biden, the demented pilot, this is sort of like an airline where they don't even have the peanuts.
Well, let's just hope we don't crash.
Exactly. You have homeowner's insurance for a good reason, because without it, a fire, flood, or burglary could destroy you financially.
But there's another major crime your homeowner's policy doesn't cover.
It's called home title fraud.
The FBI calls title fraud one of the fastest-growing crimes, and it can ruin you financially, which is why you need home title lock.
Title fraud happens when a criminal forges your signature on documents stating that you sold your home to him.
Then he takes out loans against your home and leaves you with the payments.
You'll spend a fortune in legal fees trying to prove you didn't commit fraud.
Well, home title lock puts a barrier around your home's title.
That's why Debbie and I bought it to protect our home.
Now, the instant home title lock detects someone, from a cyber thief to a renter to a relative, trying to forge their way onto your home's title, they help shut it down.
Go to HometitleLock.com and register your address to see if you're already a victim and enter promo code RADIO for your 60-day money-back guarantee.
That's HometitleLock.com promo code RADIO. There's a...
Remarkable trial going on in Finland right now, which I see as a kind of window into not only European secularization, but active state hostility toward religion and specifically toward Christianity.
Now, two people, and these are not ordinary citizens.
One is a Finnish parliament member and former minister of the interior.
This is a woman named Paibi Rasanen.
She happens to be also a medical doctor.
And another guy, a bishop in the Evangelical Lutheran Mission Church in Finland.
This is a guy named Uhana Rasanen.
I'm not sure if I'm pronouncing any of this right.
But in any event, this woman and this man, one a politician and the other a bishop, are under trial, apparently, for making hostile comments towards the LGBTQ movement.
And this is not merely a matter of, oh, they're engaging in irresponsible speech, or not even that their speech should be somehow deleted or suppressed, removed from the record, but it's a criminal case.
They are committing a crime for what they have said in their writings and their public That they are, quote, discriminating against minorities, not by action, they haven't done anything to anyone, but by their words.
Wow. Now, the prosecutor...
has made the following statement in his opening statement.
He goes, quote, religious freedom exists, he means in Finland, religious freedom exists, but must be limited within certain boundaries.
Now, you can see here the echoes of what the left believes in this country.
They're not against freedom at all, but they're like freedom unless it trespasses on one of our orthodoxies, in which case the freedom itself becomes abridged.
Now, interestingly, there's a kind of boldness to these defendants.
the woman, Pai V. Rasanen, she says, In all charges I deny any wrongdoing.
My writings and statements under investigation are linked to the Bible's teachings on marriage, living as a man and a woman, as well as the Apostle Paul's teaching on homosexual acts.
Boom.
So, what she's saying is, look, it's really not even me that's on trial.
It's the Bible itself, because I'm doing nothing more than quoting the Bible.
And the defense has essentially grabbed onto this and basically said, listen, if you find these two people guilty, you're criminalizing the Bible.
You're criminalizing Bible verses that are being tweeted or quoted or shared by these two individuals.
Paul Coleman, the executive director of the ADF, this is the Alliance Defending Freedom, they're defending these two guys, and they say this would set, quote, a new European low bar for free speech standards.
So this case is underway.
It hasn't been decided.
The court is still considering what to do about this.
But we begin to see here how, not just in America, but in Europe, and in some cases, Europe is in a worse situation.
They are now in the name of anti-discrimination.
They're now in the name of fighting hate speech.
By the way, the line between hate speech and a hate crime, in other words, the line between speech and action, is frequently made fuzzy.
So that even convictions, conscience, the articulation of what you believe, and not just what you believe, what millions of people around the world believe, what the holy book of one of the world's great religions says, these statements are somehow treated as not only beyond the bounds, but incredibly a violation of criminal law.
You know, if I were to put you under a lie detector test and simply ask you, are you eating enough fruits and veggies?
You probably would have to fess up and go, no, I'm not.
I kind of know I should be.
And of course, the same is true of all of us, Debbie and me.
I mean, since we were kids, our parents are like, you got to eat the fruits and the veggies.
We know it, but we don't do it.
Now, the good news today is that there's a solution that delivers the fruits and veggies to you in a kind of new form.
It's called balance of nature.
So here's what we do. Every morning, three of these.
These are three capsules.
These are the veggies. And three of these.
These are the fruits. By the way, they smell great.
They taste good.
They go right down.
Easy to swallow. And Debbie swears by this.
This is the fiber and spice.
She says it makes her regular.
She says it also deals with her acid reflux.
I'm now taking it. So call 800-246-8751.
That number again, 800-246-8751.
Or go to balanceofnature.com.
To get your discount, you need to use the discount code, which is AMERICA. One of the interesting aspects of the Gillen-Maxwell trial is, well, many of us have been waiting for Maxwell herself to sort of drop the bomb and put out her little black book and expose who were all these guys,
all these powerful men around the world who were part of the Jeffrey Epstein-Gillen-Maxwell network.
And that hasn't happened yet, and I'm not sure if it will happen.
They say that Gill and Maxwell might be able to get a lower sentence if she were to do this, but I think that the prosecution is even more eager than Maxwell to conceal this information.
They're probably putting pressure on Maxwell in all the different ways that they can, and the legal system has all kinds of ways of bludgeoning you.
And even when something is in your interest to do, they have ways of making you not do it.
So I'm not that hopeful that Gill and Maxwell will kind of spill the memes.
The good news is that there's been some kind of, I would call it almost fallout from the trial, because what's happening is that media sources are running to other people who are involved.
And one of those people is a woman named Lady Victoria Hervey.
She's... Someone who's British royalty.
And she was also kind of one of these it girls, a kind of Paris Hilton, if you will, of Great Britain.
And there was recently an ITV documentary called Gillen, Prince Andrew and the Pedophile.
So it was actually an exploration of what Lady Victoria Hervey knew about the Jeffrey Epstein Network.
And her statements I find extremely interesting.
She goes, first of all, Jeffrey Epstein and Bill Clinton were so close that they were, quote, like brothers.
Like brothers. And I don't think she means this in the sense that they really cared about each other or that they had common parents.
No, I think she means that they were buddies on the same expedition.
And they were consorting together about how to carry out this disgusting enterprise.
And she gives some windows into how this all works.
In fact, she says, quote, I don't know if you saw the paintings that were in Jeffrey Epstein's house, one of them being a portrait of Bill Clinton wearing a dress that Monica Lewinsky wore when they had the affair.
She goes, so yeah, he was super close to Jeffrey Epstein.
Think about this. The media, by the way, has suppressed this.
We don't read about it. He was super close to Epstein.
They were like brothers, you know, and he was close to Gillen as well.
Now, we know that that's true.
Why? All you have to do is look at the official picture of Bill Clinton walking Chelsea Clinton down for her wedding, and who do you see right there in the front row?
Unmistakable, Gillen Maxwell.
So she's obviously... A close friend.
Why else would she be in a very coveted kind of wedding reception crowd?
She's right there in the front.
Quote, I'm now continuing with comments by Lady Victoria Hervey.
She basically says, I don't think Jeffrey could have done any of it without Gillen.
We know that to be true. I like her line.
She goes, quote, It was kind of like a Batman and Robin, and they were a double act.
They sort of operate together, except in this case, not to right wrongs, but to perpetrate them.
Now, she goes on to say, now this is a woman, by the way, who dated briefly Prince Andrew.
And this is another part of the interview that's pretty interesting.
She says that Clinton and Jeffrey Epstein both saw Andrew as a kind of bait.
In other words, they knew that people are mesmerized by royalty, especially British royalty.
So they thought, listen, you know, Andrew is a perv.
If we can get him into this, then he will be a magnet because people want to meet Andrew.
He's royalty. You know, in America, you can have money, but you can't have royalty.
So let's loop in the royal into our little brotherly band.
And they were evidently successful in doing so.
And she says that even her, she was at that time dating Andrew, she was seen as kind of a socialite, and so she says she too was seen as bait.
Again, what she means by bait is that she is not the actual target of these men.
They're not interested in her per se.
They're interested in the fact of creating an aura of elitism, exclusivity, enormous wealth, Power and privilege and royalty is part of all that.
And so the more people that you get who are British royalty, including Prince Andrew, the more you can then go to, you know, young girls who are trying to make it in the world and say, listen, wouldn't you like to come to a party with all these powerful influences?
Wouldn't you like to go to an island?
It's a private island.
You're going to meet all these amazing people who are movers and shakers in the world.
Think of the kind of opportunities that may open up to you.
This is the corrupt...
Downright wicked circuit that might have been concocted by Jeffrey Epstein, but was carried out apparently with the full knowledge, if not active participation, of his brother, Bill Clinton.
What is it that entrepreneurs actually do?
What is it that makes entrepreneurs different from other types of people?
One of the classic works on this subject, and it's kind of rare because if you go to Adam Smith, if you go to Ayn Rand, you see a defense of capitalism, a defense of entrepreneurship, but not an actual description or delineation about the uniqueness of the entrepreneur.
Now, Joseph Schumpeter, in his book, The Entrepreneur, does do this.
This is why, to me, this is a very important book.
And I test it by measuring it against my own kind of entrepreneurial ventures.
I remember, for example, when I first...
Concocted the idea of doing this movie on Obama.
I met a guy who wrote me a check for $100,000, but I told him it's going to take $2 or $2.5 million to make the film.
And he's like, well, here's $100,000.
Go find 19 other guys to give you the same.
I was like, whoa.
Of course, I had no experience in filmmaking.
I was known as a writer, a think tank guy.
And so I'd go to potential investors who did have the money, but they would look at me as if, What?
What are you talking about?
A movie? What good is that going to do?
How are you going to get that out?
How are you going to even make it?
And so this is something that Sean Peter talks about.
He basically says that the entrepreneur comes up with an idea.
And we often think that the entrepreneur needs to have like a new invention, a kind of...
No, yes, there are entrepreneurs who come up with new inventions and then figure out how to get them out.
But ordinary entrepreneurship is you just identify a need.
And the need could be...
Very small. It could involve nothing new.
It's just what Schumpeter calls a new combination.
And so, for example, the suitcase has been around for a long time and the wheel has been around for a long time, but roll-on luggage hasn't been around for a long time.
So an entrepreneur may go, listen, what if I took the wheel?
What if I took the suitcase?
I stuck the wheels on the suitcase.
Suddenly, it's much easier to get around with your luggage.
So something so simple, an innovation, not an invention.
So the entrepreneur comes up with an idea.
And this is where I think, and the idea, as I say, could be kind of narrow.
Why shouldn't we have little places and cars where we can put our coffee cups?
Think about it. The entrepreneur isn't inventing the coffee, and he isn't inventing the car.
He's just figuring out that, listen, for a long time we've had cars, and people like, in general, to have coffee while they're driving to work.
So what about an innovation in which cars are made a little So that it's very easy for you to deposit your coffee cup right beside you.
So the entrepreneur has an idea.
Sometimes it's a narrow idea.
But here's the point. Nobody else sort of gets the idea.
Why? Because the idea is something novel.
It's something that doesn't exist before.
Think about it. If it existed before, then somebody would have done it.
Somebody already would have done it.
But the very fact that you have a new idea, when you present it to other people, they look at you as if to go, huh?
And so the entrepreneur, says Schumpeter, not only has to meet the resistance of society, of the people around him who thinks that the idea is downright stupid, but the entrepreneur has to meet resistance inside of himself or herself.
In other words, the entrepreneurs, because all of us have an element in ourselves that's conventional.
We like to trod the straight path.
We like to walk on the road and not make the road.
And so Schumpeter says that there's a little part of you that goes, well, it kind of is stupid.
I mean, how do I even know that there's going to be a need for this?
How do I even know that this thing that I'm trying to make, this system I'm trying to create, is even going to work?
How do I know there's any demand for this so-called product that I'm all excited about?
So the entrepreneur, says Schumpeter, the courageous, adventurous part of the entrepreneur has got to shut down the frightened, anxious, conventional part of yourself.
You have to win the battle inside of yourself.
And you've then got to push ahead with it.
And now, says Schumpeter, the idea by itself is not enough.
There are countless people who have really good ideas.
You know, an academic sits around.
And in fact, think of it. Here's Isaac Newton, who sits in his office at Oxford.
And he goes, I know a way to put satellites, he doesn't call them satellites, but to put objects into geosynchronous orbit.
Newton thinks of it, but he doesn't do it.
Now, admittedly, in Newton's defense, in his time, it couldn't be done.
But he comes up with the idea.
But, says Schumpeter, the key is what he calls the activity, the energy, the ambition to carry the idea out, to see it through, to push it.
And again, says Schumpeter, you've got to overcome the risk-averse part of yourself.
That says it can't be done.
It's not easy to do. How am I going to solve this problem?
You've essentially got to approach this almost with the military attitude of a conqueror and go out and do it.
The next interesting phase is you come up with a system and you now need the cooperation of others to be part of this.
And so, says Schumpeter, the obvious thing might seem to be you get a bunch of people around and say, Listen, guys, I've got an incredible idea and I know how to carry it out.
Let me reveal my idea to you and let me reveal how it's going to be carried out and I want you to partner with me as fellow entrepreneurs and let's all carry this out.
But, says Schampeter, that will never work.
Because first of all, nobody else gets the idea.
And second of all, nobody else can understand how to carry it out either.
What people understand is pretty much what you tell them.
So if you tell a guy, listen, you take this and you go from here and give it to another guy over there, people are like, okay, I can do that.
And you say, well, how about if I give you a quarter percent interest in my company for doing that?
The guy's like, no, I want $40.
And so, Sashampater, what you discover is there are all kinds of people who are necessary to your entrepreneurial scheme, but they don't get the scheme, they don't want to take the risk, and they merely will do the tasks that they're assigned, which means that they have not only no understanding of the overall scheme, they have no interest in it.
They don't care how you're going to get from here to there.
They merely want to know, what do I have to do and what are you going to pay me?
And so, says Schumpeter, what the entrepreneur has to do is, using the mechanism of money, enlist all these people to carry out his scheme, even though they have no clue what the scheme is.
In fact, if you think about it, says Schumpeter, I think this is very insightful, he says that for the worker, there's only one customer.
And that's the boss. The boss is your customer.
The worker has to please only the boss.
And so the entrepreneur is the boss.
The worker essentially delivers services to the entrepreneur, but the entrepreneur's boss is actually the public that will eventually consume his product, of which the entrepreneur hasn't met these people yet.
And in fact, those people in some cases, this is where I think it becomes really interesting, they don't even know that they want or need the product.
Why? Because they've never seen it before.
It's a new way of doing something.
It's a new thing.
And so the entrepreneur has ultimately got to sell them on the idea that you need to try this out.
This is actually going to make your life better.
This is going to be worth the tariff, the cost that I'm going to place upon it.
So, the entrepreneur really is the hero, heroine of capitalist society.
I think it's really amazing that there's been so little, I don't mean devotional celebration of the entrepreneur, but just mere intelligent chronicling and identifying people.
Of what is it that makes entrepreneurs different from, let's call them, run-of-the-mill people.
And Sean Peter's conclusion, which he substantiates throughout the book, and by the way, it's a book bristling with ideas and bristling with insights.
What he's really saying is that most people are conventional, but the entrepreneur is the unconventional man.
▲
Export Selection