All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 17, 2022 - Dinesh D'Souza
46:51
FALSELY ACCUSED Dinesh D’Souza Podcast Ep436
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
This episode is brought to you by my friend Rebecca Walser, a financial expert who can help you protect your wealth.
Book your free call with her team by going to friendofdinesh.com.
That's friendofdinesh.com.
Coming up, I'm going to explore the hidden significance of Nancy Pelosi's comments about punching Trump in the face.
I'll interview Ed Tarpley, Jr., the attorney for Oathkeeper founder Stuart Rhodes, to give you an update on the ongoing sedition trial.
I'll explore the faulty foundation for FBI raids on pro-life activists, and I'll reveal why the Colorado Christian Baker is back in court.
This is the Dinesh D'Souza Show.
America needs this voice.
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.
Last week, while Debbie and I were on the road, we went together to...
Michigan for an event, a Right to Life event.
Very successful. And then we were home for a day and then off to the Rio Grande Valley to visit Debbie's mom.
And that was great.
Now, while we were gone, a video surfaced, it was played on CNN, of Nancy Pelosi saying the following.
This was actually recorded on January 6th.
I hope he comes. He's talking about Trump.
I want to punch him out.
I've been waiting for this. I'm gonna punch him out.
I'm gonna go to jail. I'm gonna be happy.
Now, this is remarkable for the simple fact that here you have the Speaker of the House talking about, and with evident sincerity, she doesn't seem to be, like, kidding.
She has no kind of humorous laughter afterward, like, I'm just obviously just saying, no, she wants Trump to come so she can punch him in the face.
Punch the President of the United States in the face.
Now, interestingly, the left's reaction to all this, in fact, I saw one guy On TV, and he was like, Nancy Pelosi was extremely restrained.
I'm thinking, restrained?
Well, what would an unrestrained Nancy Pelosi be like?
I want to do what?
Do more? Do what? So, this was not restrained.
This is actually conduct very unbecoming.
And yet, here's Vanity Fair.
Nancy Pelosi, like millions of Americans, wanted to punch Trump in the face.
So this is a little way in which you see our rhetoric in this country escalating and I think reaching a little bit of a dangerous level.
Most of the commentary about this has focused on punching Trump in the face or is focused really on the fact that Nancy Pelosi had a video team there.
Let's think about it. It's January 6th.
She doesn't actually know what's going to happen.
And yet, she's got her daughter who has a video crew, and they're recording the event, and her daughter ends up making a documentary on January 6th.
So, to me, the interesting question here is this.
How did Nancy Pelosi's daughter know what was going to go down, or that what was going to go down was going to be significant, that she needed to be there with the film crew?
How did she know that this wasn't just a normal rally?
So that's a very kind of puzzling question.
And when you add it to all the other puzzling questions, a kind of picture begins to emerge.
I also want to point out that while we focused on the remark about punching Trump in the face, I want to focus on the first thing that Nancy Pelosi says.
The very first thing. I hope he comes.
And what I mean by that is, Nancy Pelosi wanted Trump to come to the Capitol.
At least if you can take her words at face value.
And this throws a whole different light on what happened on January 6th.
It was beneficial to Pelosi and the Democrats to try to draw Trump to the Capitol.
It was beneficial to them, in a way, what happened at the Capitol.
Why? Because they were immediately able to declare the matter of the election settled.
In fact, they were able to turn any discussion about the election into something that becomes a kind of prelude to an insurrection.
So let's add these puzzles.
Nancy Pelosi wants Trump to come.
Apparently her family, including her daughter, knows that something is going to go down and has a video team at the ready to record it.
Then you have Ray Epps urging people to go into the Capitol and nothing happens to him.
Then you've got the security standing around while people are taking selfies, walking around inside the Capitol.
To my knowledge, there's not a single security officer who Who stood up and said, folks, you're not allowed to be in the Capitol.
This is a restricted building.
You must leave now.
And not only did no one do that with a bullhorn, but as far as I know, no one in authority did that at all.
And so that you have right there the oddity.
I mean, if you're in a public building, and let's just say you walk into a restricted area, you see officials around, and they don't say anything.
Like, you gotta leave. Go that way, ma'am.
You can't be here. If you hear none of that...
What are you going to think? You're going to think, well, obviously it's okay because this guy is in charge of taking care of the building.
He doesn't seem to mind.
So all of this put together begins to give us a picture of January 6th very different.
In fact, the exact opposite of the picture that is being propagandistically put forward by the January 6th committee.
You all have helped to build my pillow into the incredible company it is today, and I've trusted Mike Lindell to give you a great night's sleep.
Now, on top of the specials exclusively for my listeners on the Percale and Giza Dream Bedsheets, marked down as low as $29.98, Mike is now changing the game with his three-piece towel set.
This set is made with USA cotton, making it extremely absorbent, yet still providing that soft feel you look for in a towel.
The set comes with one bath towel, one hand towel, one washcloth, typically retailing for $49.99, but now for a limited time, you can get this three-piece towel set for the low price of $19.98 with promo code Dinesh.
So don't miss out on these incredible offers.
Limited supply. Be sure to order now.
Call 800-876-0227.
That number again, 800-876-0227.
Or go to MyPillow.com.
You'll find all kinds of discounts and specials up to 66% off.
To get these discounts, you need to use promo code DINESH. The Biden DOJ, the Merrick Garland DOJ has been really going after activist pro-lifers.
And in a recent arrest, they've arrested 11 pro-life activists and charged them with violating the so-called FACE Act.
The FACE Act is the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act.
It was a law that passed that basically said that people cannot block or interfere with the provision of reproductive health care, which is basically abortion.
And these pro-life activists, I mean some of them of course just stand outside a clinic with signs, but there are others that are more activists, that their job or their goal is to talk people out of getting an abortion.
Now, this is not to say that they commit any kind of violence.
On the contrary, what they're trying to do is A, sort of disrupt the functioning of the clinic by using a human blockade.
And by the way, these are tactics picked directly out of the civil rights movement.
And number two, try to talk to people who are heading in to get an abortion and persuade them not to.
So that's their goal.
Now, In 2021, a group of pro-life activists did a blockade of an abortion clinic in Juliet, Tennessee.
They obviously thought they were doing something good, and they broadcasted on Facebook.
This was a kind of a live action, as they call it.
And now, a whole bunch of these people, in fact, some of them, a couple of them are young, but one of them, Eva Edel, is 87 years old.
She was part of it. She's been arrested.
So you've got all these people who are arrested and supposedly...
They're arrested for blocking people from providing reproductive health care.
By the way, this carries stern penalties, up to 11 years in prison, fines of up to $250,000.
I had reported the previous week about the case of a Catholic father named Mark Houck, who had been arrested in a very similar manner.
An FBI raid on Mark Houck's house, and he was accused of, well, he has been charged with two counts of shoving a reproductive health care worker.
Now, as I look a little more closely at the case, I begin to realize that this case is extremely questionable on two counts.
One, even though Mark Hauck is accused of two counts of shoving this worker at...
At a clinic, it turns out that he shot the guy once.
In other words, the guy apparently came up into his face, was yelling at Mark Hauck's son.
Mark Hauck pushes him.
The guy goes down.
He falls down. He's not apparently seriously hurt.
And we know this because he filed a court claim against Mark Hauck, and the court claim was basically dismissed because there was...
You can almost say no harm done.
This was just an argument among two guys.
Nevertheless, in comes the FBI, and they're accusing Mark Hauck of two counts of assault.
So where's the second count?
Well, it turns out that this guy now claims that he was shoved a second time.
Now, he never claimed that the first time.
So this appears to be a manufactured or invented or remembered.
Oh, there was a second shove.
And... So, it's going to be interesting to see how the government tries to prove this sort of second case of assault.
But the more important point I want to make here is that the FACE Act is all about preventing patients, and of course patients here means women who want abortions, from being able to get these abortions.
Now, when this reproductive worker came up to Mark Houck, was he escorting, he claims to be an escort in the sense that his job is to escort these women to get their abortions, but at that particular time, he was escorting no one.
In fact, he just came out of the clinic and began to enter into this altercation with Mark Houck, which is another way of saying that Mark Houck does not seem to have violated the FACE Act.
He was not interfering with anybody getting reproductive health care.
He was standing there.
Out comes a worker who argues with him.
Somebody gets shoved once, it seems.
And based on that, you've got this guy facing years in prison, facing financial ruin.
This is just a complete abuse of the system of justice.
In fact, the lower court looked at it and saw no merit to it.
And so the feds are like, you know what?
And I was talking to Debbie about this and she was like, you know what?
This is just revenge for the Supreme Court's decision in the Dobbs case.
I think that's really the best way to look at it.
They're bitter about the judicial verdict.
There's nothing they can do about it.
And so they're taking it out on these pro-life activists.
You've heard me say it. I'm not a big fan of the flavor of veggies, or most of them.
But I have to admit, when I'm in the produce section, all the vibrant colors of fruits and veggies look really good.
Now, Dr. Douglas Howard at Balance of Nature explains to us that all those colors you see in the produce section equal nutritional variety.
Different colors signify different key nutrients.
So if you only eat your favorite one or two veggies, well, you're missing out on a whole world of vital nutrients.
This is why Debbie and I take these six little fruits and veggie capsules each day.
Each daily dose is made up of a blend of 31 different fruits and veggies.
31.
So variety equals vitality.
Give your body everything it needs with Balance of Nature.
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 or go to balanceofnature.com and use discount code AMERICA.
Remember the Colorado Christian Baker?
This is Jack Phillips.
He refused to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple that wanted to get married and make our wedding cake.
He's like, well, I bake cakes and I'm happy to bake a cake for you, but I can't.
I'm going to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple because I don't believe in that.
So this is an issue of conscience.
And the Supreme Court agreed.
And the Supreme Court basically found in his favor.
So what happens? Just as the Supreme Court is considering that case, a transgender attorney, this is someone named Autumn Scardinia, sues Jack Phillips again.
So this poor guy, I mean, he spent years, he spent all this time, all these resources taking his case up to the Supreme Court, and he wins, and they sue him again.
So this is the strategy of the left.
And it's basically, we're going to ruin your life, and we're going to send a message to everybody else that if they take a stand on conscience, we'll ruin their lives.
So it's a message of intimidation aimed, quite honestly, at you and at me.
Autumn's Cardinia goes into Jack Phillips' cake shop and says, I want a cake that has blue frosting on the outside and pink on the inside because this reflects my gender transition.
In fact, it's a symbol that somebody can, in fact, change their gender.
Well, Phillips goes, listen, I'm happy to bake you a cake, but I don't agree with that message, so I'm not going to make that cake because you're forcing me in making that cake to say something that I don't believe.
And so from Scardinia's point of view, this is a case about discrimination.
It's a case about the, quote, the dignity of LGBTQ Americans.
And for Jack Phillips, it is a simple case about conscience, which is to say, listen, you can't force somebody, even somebody who's offering his services to the public, nevertheless, to put on this cake a message that they, in good conscience or based on their religious beliefs or their moral convictions, do not believe.
Now, this would seem to be the identical case that was just before the Supreme Court.
So, didn't the Supreme Court, like, settle the issue?
Well, apparently, Autumn Skardinia thinks no.
So, once again, this second case is now making its way kind of up the ladder.
The... The case goes before a local court and the local judge, Denver District Judge A. Bruce Jones.
Basically, this is a leftist and he says to Jack Phillips, listen, this is really not about your beliefs at all.
This is about action.
You're making a cake. You're offering a professional service.
It's just a product sold by a business.
And you are not allowed to discriminate against people who have historically been treated unfairly.
So he appeals to a kind of rule by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission.
By the way, the identical rule that Jack Phillips was accused of violating in the gay wedding case.
So it looks like Jack Phillips is making his way up again.
And now it's before the appellate court.
And of course, I think depending on what the ruling is there, it's quite likely that the losing side will appeal again to the Supreme Court.
So it looks like the Supreme Court here has got to make a big decision and sort of settle this issue once and for all.
In the first Jack Phillips case, the court was a little bit cagey and said, basically, we're not resolving the issue in general.
We're resolving the issue in this particular case.
So needless to say, when you say that, someone's gonna go, well, let's drive this particular case.
And now, so the Supreme Court, it looks like, is going to be looking at a case But it's not the same case.
So there's a case in Colorado involving a Denver area designer, a woman named Lori Smith, who basically builds wedding websites.
Now, a same-sex couple, no surprise, comes to her and goes, you gotta build our website.
She goes, listen, I don't believe in same-sex marriage.
I'm not gonna build your website.
There are lots of other people who make websites.
Go to one of them. Once again, there's a lawsuit.
It's made its way up the ranks, and it's now before the Supreme Court.
So I'm hopeful that the Supreme Court will recognize that this madness is going to keep going.
You cannot keep ruining people's lives and keep them litigating, litigating, litigating.
It's important to settle the issue once and for all, and it seems to me that if you're trying to weigh two things, a Colorado Civil Rights Commission rule that basically says you can't discriminate, okay, that's completely different from forcing someone to violate their own beliefs.
That kind of conscientious objection, if you want to use that term, has been allowed in our history.
It's a way of protecting the First Amendment, the freedom of conscience, And I hope the Supreme Court rules in Jack Phillips' favor once again.
Are you watching your retirement slip through your hands every day?
Are you worried about a black swan market event that could be coming?
This is an event that kind of comes out of nowhere and basically decimates your accumulated savings.
That's not all. Interest rates are going up.
Inflation skyrocketing.
How can we protect our money?
How can you get ahead of what's happening with the economy?
This isn't a time to wing it or go with a hunch.
You need a qualified expert on your side.
Well, I'm not that expert, but my friend Rebecca Walzer is.
She's a tax attorney and wealth strategist with her MBA from the London School of Economics.
Rebecca and her team will help to prepare you and your money for the turbulent times ahead.
We all work hard for our money.
We can use some really good guidance to help us build on what we have.
Go to friendofdinesh.com, book your complimentary introductory call today to see if you qualify.
That's friendofdinesh.com.
Let Rebecca Walser's team of experts protect your wealth during these unprecedented times.
Guys, there's a huge trial going on, the Oath Keepers trial, and I'm delighted to welcome to the podcast Ed Tarpley.
Ed's a criminal defense attorney from Louisiana.
He's practiced law there for 42 years.
In fact, he served as the district attorney in Louisiana from 1991 to 1997.
He's one of the attorneys on the team representing Stuart Rhodes.
Stuart Rhodes, the founder of Ed, welcome to the podcast.
Thanks for joining me.
A lot going on, I know, in the courtroom, and thanks for taking the time to step out and give us an update.
How, in your assessment, is this trial going, and where is it, at what stage are we at right now?
Yeah, let me just say, first of all, that it's a pleasure to be on the podcast today.
As you know, the local court rules prohibit me from discussing the evidence that's in the case, so we have to be careful not to run astray of violating the local court rules.
But there are many things I can tell you.
First of all, I can say that we think the trial is going well, that we have an outstanding team of attorneys working on this case.
I'm representing Stuart Rhodes along with Phil Linder and James Lee Bright from Dallas, Texas.
Two outstanding lawyers.
We have the other defendants.
Kelly Meggs has Stanley Woodard and Julie Haller from Washington, D.C. Kenneth Harrelson has Brad Geyer from New Jersey.
Jessica Watkins has Jonathan Criss from Pennsylvania.
And Mr.
Thomas Caldwell has Dave Fisher from Maryland.
So we have a lot of outstanding attorneys on this case, and we have a great camaraderie and rapport with each other.
So I just think we have an outstanding team in this trial on behalf of the defense.
Let's talk about the, before we talk about the evidence, or at least specifically Stuart Rhodes, let's talk about the concern that so many of us have that we are in an environment where there is intense pressure I mean, they're entitled to a jury of their peers.
It's obviously the judge's job to make sure that that's the case.
But we have an Obama judge, Amit Mehta.
By and large, these judges have been very reluctant to say anything other than, yeah, we've been in D.C. a long time.
These jurors are wonderful.
My question is, do you feel confident, even with a D.C. jury and a kind of progressive political establishment, that you can get a Well, that's a good question, and obviously we won't know the answer to that until the trial is over.
But let me just say this.
We spent three days selecting the jury two weeks ago, and we went through an enormous amount of questions to the potential jurors.
The jury pool was a large pool.
The judge called in many more potential jurors than normal.
And there were a lot of jurors, a lot of individuals on the jury panel that were excused because of cause.
And so these were people who truthfully said, I don't think I can render a fair verdict.
I don't think I can be fair in this situation.
And, you know, all during that process, my prayer was that people would just tell the truth.
If they were so convinced about, you know, their views of January 6th and what these defendants were involved in, that they could not be fair, well, just tell the truth.
And, you know, I think in large measure, most of them did that.
And so, you know, I'm optimistic that we have a good jury.
I'm an optimist by nature.
And I'm just going to say that I think that the judge did a good job in this case.
Certainly, there were decisions that he's made that we disagreed with, but overall, I'm hopeful that we have a good jury listening to the evidence in this case.
Let's turn to the case itself.
I'm actually looking here at an article, and of course we have to remember that this is an article, by the way, by Glenn Kirshner.
He's an MSNBC opinion columnist, but he's evidently also an attorney.
He goes,"...the evidence of guilt is remarkably strong.
The defenses offered are just as weak." He goes, rarely in my 30 years as a prosecutor have I seen a case with as much direct evidence of guilt as this trial.
I think what he's trying to say is that normally you can't know the state of mind or the motives of the people who are being charged.
You have to infer them from the circumstances of the case.
But he seems to say that in this case, the prosecutors are introducing all this email traffic, this back and forth, Among these defendants and others, showing that they had every intention of coming to Washington.
They saw themselves as a kind of a militia.
They wanted Trump to invoke the Insurrectionary Act.
They had some ideas, even if he didn't.
What do you make of this kind of a claim?
I realize it's outside the courtroom, but it's coming from someone who claims to be kind of in the know.
Hey, we got these guys because, after all, we've got them saying what they intended to do in their own words.
Well, let me just say, first of all, Dinesh, that there are two sides to every story.
And we have not had a chance to present our side of the evidence yet.
And that will probably come in about a week, week and a half.
And so we look forward to presenting all the evidence on behalf of Stuart Rhodes and the other four defendants in the case.
And we feel confident that once the defense lawyers and the defendants have had a chance to present their side of the story, That people might take an entirely different view of what happened on January the 6th.
But we'll have to wait and see how that works out.
Because again, that's evidence that will have to be introduced in the court and I can't really comment on that at this time.
But let me just say that, you know, I've read some of the coverage of the trial and, you know, having been in the trial for every single day, I'll have to say that I've wondered whether the people covering the trial are covering a different trial Because what we see in the trial is different than what's being reported.
And so I'm just going to say that, look, we look forward to putting on our case and we look forward to the jury rendering a verdict.
You know, this is not a sprint.
This is a marathon. It's a very long trial.
And so we'll just have to see what happens on each and every day.
But at this stage of the game, I'll have to say I'm cautiously optimistic.
Let's take a pause. We'll be back with Edward Tarpley, criminal defense attorney for Stuart Rhodes and the Oath Keepers trial.
What some of us would do just to be young again, the simple things like climbing stairs, getting in and out of bed, taking a walk, aren't always that simple.
What, too many aches and pains?
But they can be, because thankfully now, there's a 100% drug-free solution for the aches and pains.
It's called Relief Factor.
Relief Factor supports your body's fight against inflammation and We're good to go.
Order the three-week quick start for the discounted price of just $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.
You'll feel the difference.
I'm back with Edward Tarpley, attorney for Stuart Rhodes.
We're talking about the sedition trial going on.
Ed, let me ask you this.
The... Stuart Rhodes was not in the Capitol.
And even so, he is being charged, I guess as head of the Oath Keepers, of being part of this seditious conspiracy.
How do you charge someone who was not present?
I mean, I guess it could be that he was the mastermind directing everything that occurred.
But can you talk a little bit about, perhaps just looking at things that you've already said in public or your site has already put out in public, make the point about why is it wrong in general, but wrong in this case specifically, to charge a guy like Stuart Rhodes with seditious conspiracy?
Well, we think that, first of all, that What we see happening, I think, in some of these cases is a criminalization of the First Amendment.
In other words, people have a right to express themselves and speak in the public forum.
We believe in this country in the free marketplace of ideas.
And, you know, under the Brandenburg case, which was decided by the US Supreme Court many, many years ago, free speech is upheld as one of the great rights that we have under the First Amendment.
And, you know, the Supreme Court in the Brandenburg case said, you know, it's the speech that we really dislike the most is the speech that we need to protect the most.
And so, you know, I just hearken back to the Brandenburg case to talk about the fact that, you know, people may say things in the public square, they may say things on the Internet.
But even if you dislike that or you find it to be inflammatory rhetoric, that's still protected by the First Amendment.
But with regard to this case in particular, we have said publicly that Stuart Rhodes did not enter the Capitol and he did not tell anyone to enter the Capitol.
And that's been something that we have said from the very beginning.
So look, we're looking forward to the defense being able to put on our case.
That will happen probably within a week and a half to two weeks.
And then at that time, I think that the whole world will know what really happened on January 6th.
While this trial is going on, the January 6th committee is having hearings, putting out information.
I know this has been a real concern of you and the other attorneys.
Can you get a free trial when you've got this government or quasi-government juggernaut that would seem to be poisoning the jury and putting out information while an actual trial is going on?
Let me just say, what the January 6th committee has done It has been shameful and disgraceful in our nation.
That we have people standing trial in the federal court in Washington, D.C., and yet just a few blocks away, a few blocks down the street, we have a committee that's running a parallel criminal investigation without having to obey or follow any of the rules of evidence whatsoever.
That has an impact on the public and on this trial.
It is a shameful thing.
What happened last week was particularly disgusting.
It was unprecedented because the January 6th committee actually used some of the evidence that has been introduced in this trial in their January 6th proceeding.
Why would they do that?
This is just unprecedented.
It's selfish.
It's hypocritical that this committee would say things in the public arena while we are down here in federal court trying a case on the very same topic.
I think that all the attorneys were outraged by what happened last week, and the January 6th committee owes these defendants and the American people an apology for what they have done.
Ed, everybody in the country is entitled to a defense.
In Debbie, in my view, this is outrageous.
The idea of trying to bring these extreme charges that carry very heavy penalties against people for basically, as you say, bloviating rhetoric.
And in Stuart Rhodes' case, he didn't even ask people to go into the Capitol or take over the Capitol or anything like that.
Talk a little bit. I mean, you've been a real soldier here in putting out your time, your effort, To come into this case, in fact, really without even any clear assurance that you would even be paid, talk a little bit about why you're doing it and also talk a little bit about a fund that has been set up to help these defendants and help them get the free trial that they're fully entitled to.
Thank you so much. Yes.
Actually, the Lord put it on my heart about a year ago as a Christian attorney that you need to take a stand and you need to offer your services to some of these people that need legal representation.
You know, one of the stories in this case, it hasn't been reported very much, but one of the stories is how difficult it has been for defendants in these January 6 cases to find representation.
And that to me has been a disgraceful thing for the American legal system in the sense that we ought to come forward as lawyers to stand in the gap, to represent people that are in a situation in which maybe the public thinks this is a very unpopular case or maybe there's a lot of controversy surrounding this case.
But those cases, in fact, are the cases where we really need people to step up.
And so I decided about a year ago to do that.
I became admitted to the U.S. District Bar here in Washington, D.C. And then through an interesting and amazing set of circumstances, I found myself involved in this case representing Stuart Rhodes as part of his legal team.
I'll just have to say that it's been a sovereign act of God that put me in the case.
I'm glad to be here.
It's a blessing to be a part of this, to stand up for the Constitution and the First Amendment and the Bill of Rights and all that we hold dear in this country.
That's why I'm here. And I'm just grateful.
And I'll have to say that the Patriots Legal Defense Fund has offered to assist Stuart Rhodes in paying some of his legal fees.
And so if anyone would like to make a donation to help Stuart Rhodes pay his legal fees, they can go to PatriotsLegalDefenseFund.org.
PatriotsLegalDefenseFund.org.
It's a nonprofit corporation set up in Virginia.
There's a donate button there.
And you can... You can support Stuart Rhodes and you can support the effort to really help many, many of the January 6th defendants.
And look, there's a lot of other groups out there that are raising money and helping other defendants.
So I want to say that, you know, whichever group you want to support, please get out there and support them because there's a lot of good people that are raising money to help pay the legal expenses of January 6th defendants.
And we all ought to be involved in helping each other because we're all on the same team here to see that Competent legal defense is provided for these defendants in this very, very important case.
Absolutely. Debbie and I definitely want to help with this.
We've agreed to contribute $10,000, so we're going to do that.
But we want to urge you out there to join us.
The website, Patriots, plural, patriotslegaldefensefund.org.
It's a way to step in in a case where these guys have been, in many ways, kind of having to fight this battle on their own.
I'm really pleased to see competent attorneys stepping up and defending them.
We can help in our own way.
Thank you, Edward Tarpley, for joining me.
I really appreciate it.
Thank you for having me.
Thank you so much. And one last word.
Let's pray for the jurors.
Let's pray for the judge.
Let's pray for the lawyers.
Let's just ask God to bless this trial and all the people that are involved in it.
We need to pray earnestly and sincerely for God's will to be done in this trial.
Absolutely. With the consumer price index increasing yet again, the stock market has been in absolute turmoil.
What's our illustrious leader doing to quell the surge of inflation that's destroying so many American families?
Oh yeah, spending more money and adding to the burden.
Well, don't bury your head in the sand while your savings get decimated.
Do something about it.
I'm diversified into gold with Birch Gold and you can be too.
Text Dinesh to 989898.
Birch Gold will send you a free information kit on protecting your savings with gold in a tax-sheltered account.
These are great people with almost 20 years experience converting IRAs and 401ks into precious metals IRAs.
Don't let the left devalue your savings.
Text Dinesh to 989898.
Claim your free information kit from Birch Gold.
Again, you can own physical gold and silver in a tax-sheltered retirement account, and Birch Gold will help you do it.
Join their thousands of satisfied customers like me.
Check them out. Text Dinesh to 989898.
Secure your future with gold today.
The cleanup is continuing in the aftermath of the damage caused by Hurricane Ian, and of course there have been other hurricanes That have struck in the Caribbean and elsewhere.
And every time there's a hurricane, we get the familiar statements in the media.
I'm thinking about, you know, places like The Guardian or places like MSNBC and elsewhere.
And these statements are very hyperbolic and are basically to the effect, see, this is the obvious effect of climate change.
And what I want to do here is not so much argue about climate change, but I just want to focus on what the official sources that study hurricanes.
And I'm thinking here about places like the National Hurricane Center.
I'm thinking about the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research.
I'm thinking even of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
But I'm also thinking about the...
The World Meteorological Association.
All of these groups, these are the official groups that study hurricanes.
They look at where they occur, how intense they are, how often they occur, and what they mean.
So, in contrast with these kind of exaggerated media reports, which, by the way, jump to conclusions, often are supported by little or no data, Let's look at some of the official statements.
Here's the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in its latest report.
I'm quoting directly from the IPCC. There is still no consensus on the relative magnitude of human and natural influences on past changes in Atlantic hurricane activity, and particularly on which factor has dominated the observed increase, and it remains uncertain whether past changes in Atlantic, T.C., Activity are outside the range of natural variability.
Translated, what that means is there is no clear correlation.
Hurricanes happen. They've happened before.
They're happening now. We're not able to say.
That's the meaning of there's still no consensus or it remains uncertain.
It turns out that there was, in fact, a period.
And, in fact, some of the media reports would say hurricanes are more intense.
They're more intense than we've seen in the last...
Several years, there is a grain of truth to that, because when you study these hurricanes, and we're looking here at official data, I'm looking at all these charts put out by the IPCC, by the way, and it says that there was a decrease in hurricane activity for an 11-year period, from 2006 to 2017.
So if that's your basis of comparison, and you say, well, there are more hurricanes now, you're right.
But the reason you're right is because in that period, the volume of hurricanes was less, but hurricane activity now has returned to what the levels that it was seen before that.
So in other words, there is a kind of normal level of hurricane activity.
We were at a below normal level for about a decade.
We're at a normal level now.
Now, there have been some articles I've seen that say that the amount of damage that And this is, in fact, supported by the World Meteorological Association and by other official sources.
But it turns out that the reason hurricanes do more damage now is because there's been more economic development.
I saw a very interesting graphic showing Miami Beach 30 years ago and then 60 years ago versus Miami Beach now.
It's not the same place.
Miami Beach 60 years ago, you have a little place here, a big stretch of beach, a little place over there.
The beach wasn't even fully developed.
30 years ago there was development, but much less than there is today.
So now, if the same hurricane hits the same beach at the same kind of intensity, it's going to cause far more damage just because there are far more things to damage that are sitting on the beach.
So the bottom line of it is this debate continues.
I think what strikes me is that you don't have really both sides of the debate often reflected in the media.
And so it's incumbent upon us to look to these official sources to see that a lot of the things that are said in the media about hurricanes are not supported by official observations or official data.
I'm picking up with the Odyssey after, well, a week of break, and so I feel like I need to set the scene once again.
We're in Book 12 of the Odyssey, and we're, well, in the last phase of Odysseus' adventures, as told by a flashback.
Odysseus is talking to the Phaeacians, he's telling them about his journeys, and he has gone through the Land of the Dead, And now he has to go back to Circe's island.
Why? Because if you remember, there was a kind of minor character named Elpinor who went up on the roof of Circe's palace, fell down as he was trying to descend, broke his neck and died, and he told Odysseus in the land of the dead, please go back and bury me.
So Odysseus does that.
He goes back to Circe's island.
And quickly we chopped the wood and at the farthest headland we held a funeral for him and wept profusely, crying out in grief.
We burned his body and his gear and built a mound, dragged a pillar onto it, fixed his oar on the top, so his oar becomes kind of his tombstone.
And it's interesting here because Odysseus knows this guy, but not well.
And yet he's quite moved by completing this task.
And in a sense, Odysseus' piety here is rewarded.
It's rewarded. Why? Because he has a final audience with Circe.
And it turns out Circe gives him really valuable advice.
Really on three fronts.
So the first thing that Circe says is, as you sail on toward Ithaca, kind of go this way, but as you go, you're going to come across these sirens.
Now, who are the sirens? Well, the sirens are these strange creatures who sing...
Beautiful, haunting, sad, unforgettable melodies.
But it's a temptation.
It's a seduction.
Because once the sailors hear the song of the sirens, they don't want to leave.
They want to stay there. And they stay there.
And they can't leave.
And they die. In fact, Circe says...
The sirens will seduce you with piercing songs.
Around them, around the sirens, lie great heaps of men, flesh rotting from their bones, their skin all shriveled up.
So Circe says to Odysseus, listen, as you go by the sirens, you've got to use wax to plug the ears of all your men so they can't hear the song.
That way they're not going to be seduced by it.
They won't fall for the temptation.
They'll keep going.
But then she knows. She knows Odysseus.
And she knows he's going to, being Odysseus, he's going to be like, yeah, but what do the sirens really sound like?
And Cersei goes, if, and it's a big if, if you really want to hear the song of the sirens, she tells Odysseus, She says, So in other words, have your men tie you to the ship.
You can't get out, and that way you won't stop.
Even though you'll be tempted to stop having heard their songs, the ship will keep going, the men will keep going, and this is the way that you, and it turns out only you, because Odysseus in fact does this, We'll be able to hear the Song of the Sirens.
And then, says Circe, onward you go, and you're going to come across, well, what is now very famous, the choice of Scylla and Charybdis.
Now, Scylla, or Scylla, is a monster, a dangerous monster with six necks, six mouths, who actually eats people.
She's a cannibalistic sort of monster.
Quote, pregnant with death, as Circe describes her.
No sailors ever pass that way unharmed.
And on the other side is this kind of massive, treacherous whirlpool called Charybdis.
And basically, what Circe advises Odysseus is sail it right in between.
Go between Scylla and Charybdis.
And even today, we use this phrase...
Kind of navigating between Scylla and Charybdis.
Kind of a way of threading the needle, a way of avoiding twin evils.
One on this side, one on the other side.
But Cersei says, listen, if you have to navigate to either side, go a little bit toward Charybdis.
Don't go toward Scylla because your men are going to be attacked and are going to be eaten.
And as it turns out...
Scylla is actually able to reach out, grab six of Odysseus' men, basically one for each neck or one for each mouth, and those six men get eaten as they go through, as they somewhat successfully get by Scylla and Charybdis.
And then finally, Circe tells Odysseus, you're now going to reach the island it's called...
And this is the island of the sun god, Helios.
Do not eat the cattle of the sun god.
Why? These cattle are supposed to be immortal.
They can't be killed.
They can't be eaten.
As we will see in a very bizarre and tragic episode, Odysseus' men do in fact try to chop these cattle up and try to eat them, but it's a very gruesome scene because the cattle, in a sense, refuse to be eaten.
Even though the cattle have been chopped into pieces, the pieces themselves begin to jump around and move.
It's kind of a great scene by Homer.
But Cersei's point is that the sun god will not react kindly if you try to do this.
Do not eat the cattle of the sun god if you want to be able to make your way home.
Subscribe to the Dinesh D'Souza Podcast on Apple, Google, and Spotify.
▲
Export Selection