All Episodes
Previous Next
March 16, 2023 - Dinesh D'Souza
50:11
FOXTROT Dinesh D’Souza Podcast Ep538
| 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, you know, the January 6 videos, we saw a glimpse of them and then they disappeared.
What's going on at Fox News?
I'll give you my thoughts.
I want to expose the excessive punishment being meted out to January 6 defendants by comparing their cases to a BLM rioter case.
And the House GOP has new documents on the Biden crime family.
I think they should release them.
Basically, they're going to show how the Bidens, as a family, have made millions of dollars selling influence to China.
Hey, if you're either listening to the podcast or watching it, make sure you hit the subscribe button on Apple or Google, Spotify, or if you're watching on video, hit the subscribe button on Rumble.
This is the Dinesh Chituza show.
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.
I want to talk about the mystery of the January 6 footage.
But I want to put it in a broader context of what's going on with Fox News and specifically what's going on with Fox News regarding this January 6th video.
You remember that Kevin McCarthy gave the video.
Now, Kevin McCarthy says, I didn't really give the video.
I made it available.
Well, okay. He made it available to Tucker Carlson.
And I think the expectation was, not just to Kevin McCarthy, but a lot of people who had...
Pushed Kevin McCarthy to release this video.
They wanted to see a lot of the stuff that was held back by the January 6th committee.
Let's remember the January 6th committee put out a thoroughly cherry-picked narrative.
So all the video showing stuff that goes against the January 6th committee was not released.
They just, and in fact, if you look further at what happened with the January 6th committee, Liz Cheney even blocked the subcommittees that were looking at things like intelligence failures, the refusal to act on proper intelligence. The Capitol Police knew things, but they didn't do anything about them.
And Liz Cheney was like, don't don't release any of this.
Why? Because we've just got to make Trump the sole and exclusive villain.
So you can see the kind of propaganda that that committee ultimately became a propaganda factory.
Now, there is new information coming out on January 6th, but it's not coming out from Tucker or from Fox News.
I had yesterday Joseph McBride, the attorney representing January 6th defendants.
He talked about this document showing the Capitol Police had a sort of a game plan.
And interestingly, this game plan not only anticipated a lot of things that were going to happen, but talked about having plants and infiltrators in the crowd Not just by the way people in the crowd to calm things down.
Actually, people in the crowd to join the crowd and, if necessary, instigate things and make chants and point to the Capitol and join people in going into the Capitol.
So, this goes beyond, by the way, the idea of the FBI having somebody inside the Proud Boys or the FBI having a plant at the Three Percenters or the Oath Keepers.
We're not talking about the Capitol Police and the Metropolitan Police also.
Taking on this role of, you know, putting on pro-America, back the blue type of hats.
Why? Because they want to be seen as indistinguishable from the Trumpsters.
And therefore, think of it, if they do bad stuff, who's going to be blamed on?
The Trumpsters. Now let's turn to Fox News.
Tucker Carlson on day one released some clips and they were like, wow, look at all this stuff coming out about the shaman guy.
Look at all this stuff about Josh Hawley jogging across the corridor.
Look at all this stuff about Brian Sicknick.
And then... Nothing.
The second day when we're supposed to schedule to be a day of more footage?
Nothing. And then you're like, well, it takes time to go through the stuff.
It'll surely come out in the next day or the next day or the day after that or this week?
Nothing. And it looks like that's it.
It looks like the, I won't say the fix is in, but it looks like somebody dropped the hatchet on Tucker Carlson.
And I don't know of any other way to look at this.
I mean, obviously, one way to look at this is that Tucker reviewed the 44,000 hours of footage and realized that, you know what, by and large, I found just three clips and that's it.
That's all I got. Tucker isn't really saying.
But the other possibility, which I give it, this is the 99% possibility, is after the first day.
And let's remember, Chuck Schumer went on the Senate floor, Rupert Murdoch, I demand that you stop Tucker Carlson.
And then guess what? Somebody stop Tucker Carlson.
And who would have the power to do that?
No, it's not the...
It's not even Suzanne Scott, the CEO of Fox News.
These are orders that are coming from above.
And that would mean most likely either Lachlan Murdoch, the son of Rupert Murdoch, who is sort of the de facto guy that people at Fox report to, or Rupert Murdoch himself.
Rupert Murdoch, we know, is feuding with Trump How do we know this?
Because some very interestingly, and this all seemed to happen simultaneously, all the organs under Rupert Murdoch's control, of which I named three, the editorial page of the New York Post, the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal, And the Fox News Channel all simultaneously turned against Trump.
So it's not as if you just have guys at these outlets.
They've all made independent decisions.
No, again, this is a corporate decision from the highest level.
So I feel a little bad for Tucker because I think Tucker is a brave guy.
And I think he would have liked to have run with the footage.
Now, why doesn't he just come forward and say, hey, listen, they blocked me.
I can't release the footage.
And the answer is somebody writes his paychecks as somebody writes the paychecks of everybody at Fox.
So what happens is they not only silence these guys, but they force them into a pretense.
And the pretense is that there's no news there or they've made an independent news judgment not to cover it.
In other words, they cannot admit the truth.
And this is really, I think, the big problem with Fox and really the big problem with some of the early email releases and so on that came out through the Dominion suit with Fox is you get a little window into the fact that there are some people at Fox, not everybody, but some people, who Who are kind of laughing and deriding not only Trump, but the Trumpsters, the MAGA crowd.
And yet at the same time, they're very aware that they need the MAGA crowd.
They need the Trumpsters to keep Fox News in the kind of massively profitable, high ratings cable network that it is.
And so you've got a very duplicitous two-step in which they try to give the MAGA people just enough to While at the same time satisfying the feuds and vendettas that apparently the Murdoch family is now a part of.
We all know our digital privacy is under attack.
Big tech steals your private information, your pictures, chat, email.
This is very bad. So is there a better way?
As it turns out, there is.
Secure, which is spelled S-E-K-U-R, offers secure instant messaging and email hosted in Switzerland without using any of the big tech platforms and using Swiss privacy laws, which are the strictest in the world.
Debbie and I signed up for Secure.
we're using it, we love it.
Secure's proprietary technology allows you to communicate privately without fear of spying from big tech companies, your email provider, or hackers.
Use Secure to chat or email with everyone, including non-Secure users, thanks to Secure's unique features called Secure Send and Chat by Invite.
Secure is an email and messaging application that guarantees your privacy.
Go to secure.com, that's S-E-C-U-R.com.
Use promo code Dinesh to get 25% off for the next 24 months.
Again, it's secure, S-E-C-U-R.com.
I want to highlight the harshness to the point of just absurdity of the January 6th prosecutions.
By the way, there is word now that the DOJ may be indicting a whole bunch of new people.
They've indicted about a thousand.
They say they might have another thousand.
I mean, this would be a little bit strange that here we are in 2023, what, two and a quarter years past January 6, 2021, and what you're identifying new defendants now?
This is a little bit...
And when you look at the two cases that I'm focusing on, you just see how petty and arbitrary and even outlandish their approach is.
So my first exhibit involves a January 6th defendant who is now accused of violating his travel conditions by going to CPAC. Now, let's look at this.
The guy is, his name is Gabriel Garcia.
He is facing six charges, including two felonies, and he lives in South Florida.
And as sometimes happens when you are under indictment, awaiting trial, and he And you are not confined but allowed to go home, your travel is restricted, which means that you need to get permission when you travel.
Now, all of this is a little bit eerily familiar to me because I was under similar restrictions.
I had a probation officer and typically if I wanted to travel...
To give a speech, for example, I would have to get clearance and get permission.
I have to tell him why I'm going.
And if I said, well, it's part of the way I make my living, I could get permission to do it.
Well, now, this guy, Gabriel Garcia, sought permission from the court.
He said, I need to travel to Washington, D.C. to do two things.
One, I want to observe the January 6th trials, which are going on with the Proud Boys.
And the other is I want to consult with my own defense counsel in D.C. pending my own trial.
And these are perfectly legitimate reasons for wanting to go to Washington, D.C. and this permission was in fact granted.
But now, according to the DOJ, this fellow Gabriel Garcia violated his travel conditions.
Why? Why?
Because according to the government in a court filing, they say that he did go to the Proud Boys trial for a few hours on March 3rd, but he spent the rest of the day at CPAC, which was occurring across the river in suburban Maryland.
And the court filing has some social media posts which show Garcia socializing at CPAC. And Garcia's point is, and I think here Garcia's right, so?
In other words, Garcia said, I want permission to go to Washington D.C. to do two things.
I want to meet with my attorney, and he did.
And I want to attend the Proud Boys trial, and he did.
And then, while he was in D.C., he went, I guess, for several hours to CPAC. Now, there's absolutely nothing that I'm aware of in these travel restrictions that says that if you do the things that you said you were going to do, you can't go out to lunch, meet with friends, go to CPAC, do whatever the heck you want to do.
You are a free person.
Obviously, you need permission to make the trip, and he...
Had legitimate reasons for doing it.
And he carried out those legitimate reasons.
In my case, for example, I was given permission.
I was actually let out of the confinement center to go to a hearing in New York.
And when I went to the hearing, which would be typically in the morning, I would then go that evening over to Fox News and appear on the Megyn Kelly show.
So, what is the prosecution going to say?
Well, he's violating the terms of his, he's being let out of confinement to go to his hearing.
What's he doing on the Megyn Kelly show?
The answer is, it's none of your business.
So, in other words, it is not the case.
This guy has not been convicted of anything.
He has trials coming up.
He's operating under limited release conditions.
He's satisfying those release conditions, and yet they're trying to now somehow act like there's some kind of violation.
Frankly, I can see none, and I don't think this is likely to go anywhere unless the judge is just a complete jackass, which is, of course, not entirely outside the realm of probability.
The other outrageous case, and I'll maybe talk in more detail about this separately, is this guy, Doug Mackey, who is accused of putting out Anti-Hillary memes.
Now, strictly speaking, this is not a January 6th case.
This is a DOJ case.
But this guy put out a meme and it was a joke.
And the joke was, hey, listen, guys, when you vote for Hillary, this was in 2016, vote by phone.
Now, there's obviously no way to vote by phone.
This was an obvious joke.
And by the way, the left makes this kind of joke all the time.
There's a kind of old joke about, hey, listen, you know, tell people of the opposing party to make sure they show up to vote on Wednesday.
Of course, election day is on Tuesday.
And so this joke has been around for at least a couple of decades.
In any event, who gets prosecuted for putting out memes?
Well, apparently the answer is Doug Mackey.
The DOJ is accusing him of, quote, violating the Ku Klux Klan Act.
And the Ku Klux Klan Act goes back decades, and it was kind of an act that basically said that it was...
It was to prevent Klansmen from terrorizing Black Americans into not voting, intimidating them from voting.
Well, this guy isn't doing that.
In fact, the DOJ hasn't been able to produce one single person who was sort of, who says, hey, listen, I was thinking of voting, but, you know, I saw this guy's memes, and I tried to vote by phone, and then I didn't vote.
So in other words, they can't produce a single so-called victim of this stunt.
I mean, have we reached a point in America where you can't even do memes and jokes and quips?
because if you do, you're going to be prosecuted for it.
Just when you thought it couldn't get any better, Mike Lindell and MyPillow have launched My Mattress Topper 2.0.
Their new 3-inch MyPillow mattress topper is made up of three unique layers.
Layer 1, MyPillow patented foam, which provides superior support and durability.
Layer 2, transitional foam, which provides optimal comfort, evenly distributes body weight and helps relieve pressure points.
And Layer 3, a cover made from special material to keep your body temperature regulated through the night.
This MyPillow mattress topper is washable and dryable, made in the USA, comes with a 10-year warranty and a 60-day money-back guarantee, and it's a great deal.
The 3-inch mattress topper is as low as $219.59 with promo code Dinesh.
So go ahead, call 800-876-0227.
Again, that number, 800-876-0227, or just go to MyPillow.com.
But either way, don't forget to use the promo code, which is D-I-N-E-S-H, Dinesh.
One of the ways that we can gauge whether justice is being done is by looking to see if justice is being applied equally.
And equally means that if you have two guys who do similar or roughly the same thing, they are charged and prosecuted in the same way and they receive sort of the same penalty or a similar penalty.
Yesterday I went on Joe Walsh's podcast.
In fact, it's out today.
You can see it. You can hear it on Spotify or watch it on YouTube.
It was actually a very lively and respectful conversation of a kind that really doesn't happen a whole lot today.
But we were talking about January 6th and Joe was pressing me.
Well, don't you agree, Dinesh, it was wrong for people to go inside the Capitol?
And I go, yeah, it was.
And I said that, look...
There are people who committed misdemeanors.
They went in there. They didn't mean to break the law, but they did break the law.
They didn't do any vandalism.
They were completely peaceful and they left shortly thereafter.
Well, those people should get a misdemeanor, which basically means you get a warning or some community service.
But you're not going to take a 75-year-old grandmother—I'm giving you an actual case—in fact, I had Pamela Hemphill on the show—and lock them up for 60 days because they walked into the Capitol for 10 minutes.
This is just downright outrageous.
And you know it's outrageous because it doesn't happen to anyone else.
If you look at the massive riots that emerged in Portland in the aftermath of George Floyd, we're now talking about from summer of 2020, prosecutors dismissed a substantial number.
I mean, they dismissed outright more than one-third of the cases.
Think about it. These are cases that have, in many cases, felony charges.
Four defendants were charged with assaulting federal officers.
They just dismissed the charges.
They didn't even bring charges against them.
And this was, by the way, for the actions outside the Mark O. Hatfield U.S. courthouse.
And then let's zoom into a single case to see what happens when they do bring charges.
So this is the Biden DOJ. The same DOJ that is now arresting Trump supporters, you know, as I say, two and a quarter years later, 26 months later, you're looking at excessive prison sentences.
And so let's run a little bit of a comparison.
Here's a guy, his name is Dakota, D-A-K-O-T-A-H Horton.
So I'm picking a fairly serious case.
What happened? This was outside the Mark Hatfield Courthouse.
Officers were trying to disperse the crowd.
It says, quote, violent opportunists proceeded to attack law enforcement officers by throwing hard objects, glass bottles and explosive devices. This guy approaches a cop who was clearly marked.
He was wearing actually police uniform and he is accused of striking this guy repeatedly with a baseball bat. Wow. Now, he was charged and the charge is assault with a deadly weapon against a police officer and that carries 20 years in prison.
So far, so good. So did this guy spend months or even years in prison awaiting a trial?
No. He's actually released from custody in October 2020.
So here we go. He's arrested in August.
September, October, he's out.
In fact, I'm looking at the release and I'm looking to see if it has a date.
Yes, October 28, 2020.
So two and a half months after his arrest, he is released.
Now, he comes up for trial.
He makes a plea deal.
A plea deal on a charge that has 20 years in prison.
So did he get 10 years?
15 years? No.
As it turns out, he got 24 months.
24 months in prison for a violent assault with a deadly weapon against a police officer.
That's what the judge gives him.
And again, from the documents, defendant doesn't have a criminal history.
He's performed well on pre-trial release, meaning he didn't commit any more crimes.
And he, quote, accepted responsibility and has expressed remorse.
And for this... The DOJ proposes and the judge agrees.
Two years in prison.
Now, just contrast that with this guy named Julian Cater.
Julian Cater is the guy who sprayed Brian Sicknick with bear spray.
Now, no one is even alleging that that bear spray killed Brian Sicknick.
It was actually part of a scuffle between officers and the crowd.
And this guy argues, Julian Cater, that I was just trying to basically protect myself and I... Yes, he did spray the bear spray, and I'm not saying again that he shouldn't be prosecuted, but again, he gets 90 months.
So 90 months in prison for bear spray versus 24 months in prison for assaulting an officer with a deadly weapon.
If that doesn't make sense to you, it shouldn't.
It doesn't make sense to anybody.
It just shows the deeply inequitable application of law.
And that's one definition of injustice.
It's not simply did you break the law.
If you're speeding and you get a $100 ticket and I'm doing the same thing on the same highway or a different highway and I'm given one year in prison, then there's something wrong, not with me or with you, but with the law.
Or at least with the application with the enforcement of law.
And that's the problem here with the Biden DOJ. They're showing flagrant disregard for equality of justice under the law.
My dad didn't believe in the stock market.
He was a put-your-money-in-the-bank kind of guy.
Wow, but banks today.
But anyway, I discovered in the early 1990s that investing in the stock market makes sense if you're in it for the long term.
The problem is, look around you in a very rocky economy with lots of instability, volatility, craziness in domestic policy, a lot of uncertainty abroad.
There's always the risk of a black swan event, a single event that comes out of nowhere and basically cripples your savings.
So, Thank you.
forecaster of where things are going.
She's a tax attorney and wealth strategist with her MBA from the London School of Economics.
Rebecca and her team can help protect your wealth during these unprecedented times.
Go to friendofdinesh.com, book your complimentary introductory call today to see if you qualify. Again, that's friendofdinesh.com.
The House Republicans have been pressuring the Biden Treasury Department to release information about, well, the Biden family racket, the dealings of Biden with foreign governments, the inflows of cash to the Biden family, not just to Hunter Biden, but to other Bidens.
And all of this is now in possession of the Treasury. But look at it. This is sort of like saying that the information on Don Corleone is now in the possession of the Corleone family business, which is to say the White House and the Treasury Department are like part of Biden's family business right now. And not surprisingly, Janet Yellen, the Treasury has been blocking, stalling, stonewalling, not replying to letters and so on. But slowly, through the first threat and then the
And all of this is now in possession of the Treasury.
But look at it. This is sort of like saying that the information on Don Corleone is now in the possession of the Corleone about, well, the Biden family racket, the dealings of Biden with foreign governments, the inflows of cash to the Biden family, not just to Hunter Biden, but to other Bidens.
use of subpoenas, according to Congressman James Comer, they are getting the records.
Now, I'm going to go ahead and close out the session. Thank you so much for joining us.
Now, James Comer was on two shows.
He was on Hannity and he was on Maria Bartiromo.
And he put out some really tantalizing information about what he's getting and what he's reviewing.
Now, we haven't seen any of it yet, so we're going based upon what Representative Comer is saying.
But what he's saying sounds, to me, very juicy.
First of all, he says he's gotten bank records from one of the 13 banks used by the Biden criminal operation.
these bank records prove that the Bidens did receive money through a shell company from the Chinese Communist Party and we're just going to keep following the money.
Wow. He's talking about direct payments from the Chinese from people associated with the Chinese Communist Party, a shell company, which is a kind of a dummy company, a pass-through company. The Chinese Communist Party operates it, but it has a different name. It's not called the CCP or CCP Inc. But nevertheless, and remember, this is information from one of 13 banks. Imagine what's going to happen when more information comes forward and all of this is put together.
Now, in a separate interview, Culmer reveals that he has identified a $3 million wire that was sent to one of Hunter Biden's associates, a guy named John Rob Walker.
So, this is weeks after Biden leaves the vice presidency in 2017.
So, let's see. Biden exits the stage.
He's obviously done some favors for somebody, or his name has been used to We're good to go.
This fellow Walker gets a $3 million wire transfer from two individuals with ties to the Chinese Communist Party, which he then divvied up among multiple Biden family members.
So, you know, in this controversy, people often say, well, it's all about Hunter Biden and, you know...
Sometimes presidents have wayward sons who do all kinds of stuff.
And sure, he was trying to peddle the Biden family name.
No, James Biden isn't on it.
Frank Biden isn't on it.
And there's another Biden.
So here's Comer. He says, the Walker account started transferring money into three different Biden family member accounts, including a new Biden family member that's never before been identified as someone involved in the influence peddling scheme.
So it looks like, and this is kind of just as it was with the Corleone family, everybody is sort of brought into it.
If you're not a bag man, it's kind of like, you know, one guy is the assassin, another guy is the getaway driver, a third guy is just simply an informant, a fourth guy is supposed to set the whole thing up.
And the Bidens operate like this.
They're all crooks. This is the point.
With, of course, Joe Biden being the head crook.
And Comer says, and I mentioned this point a moment ago, this was just the first wire that we've actually been able to obtain bank records on.
There are many, many more.
Many, many more what?
Many, many more wires.
And then Comer sums it up, I think, very well.
He says, quote, the media calls it a Hunter Biden operation, a Hunter Biden investigation.
He goes, no.
This is an investigation of Joe Biden.
There are more family members involved in this than just the president's son.
And whatever they've said in the media, oh, this was for business, we can't, I'm still quoting Comer, we can't identify any business.
It appears it went into their personal account.
So the money is essentially a payoff, a bribe, a quid pro quo, call it what you will.
We have a guy...
In the White House who has taken a lot of money, think about it, the guy has four homes, four luxury homes, and how do you afford that on a government salary?
By the way, the same question could be asked about Hillary Clinton.
How do you afford a palatial lifestyle on a government salary?
And the answer is you don't, or to put it somewhat differently, you do, but it's on a salary provided by the Chinese government.
If you got some aches and pains, you don't have to just endure or live with them.
Debbie and I started taking Relief Factor a couple of years ago.
The difference we've seen in our joints is nothing short of amazing.
Aches and pains are gone thanks to this 100% drug-free solution called Relief Factor.
Now, Relief Factor works by supporting your body's fight against inflammation.
That's the source of aches and pains.
The vast majority of people who try Relief Factor love it.
They order more because it works for them.
Debbie's a true believer. She can now do all these exercises that for several years she wasn't able to do.
So Relief Factor has been a game changer for her, her aunt, other members of our family, Mike here in the studio, and for many other people.
You too can benefit. Try it for yourself.
Order the three-week quick start for the discounted price of just $19.95.
Go to Relieffactor.com.
I'll call the new number, 800-4-RELIEF, to find out more about this offer.
That number again, 800-4-RELIEF, or go to relieffactor.com.
Feel the difference. You might recall a couple of weeks ago I talked about this Cochrane Review.
Cochrane is a journal and an institution that puts out medical research, medical studies, and the Cochrane Review was done by a whole bunch of prominent researchers Including a fellow, the lead author was a man named Tom Jefferson.
And it was about the efficacy of, quote, physical interventions, but the real focus, of course, was face masks.
And it was on the effectiveness of these face masks in stopping the transmission of COVID. And the review concludes that wearing masks probably makes little or no difference to COVID or influenza or similar illness transmissions.
And here's Tom Jefferson, the lead author, quote, There is just no evidence that they, meaning masks, make any difference full stop, end quote.
Now, this was, well, fighting words.
And fighting words especially because it comes from a team of researchers putting out, based on an extensive examination of data, and published in a medical journal and a medical library that is considered authoritative.
And so it produces, no surprise, a kind of freakout on the left, and specifically at the New York Times, where a columnist named Zeynep Tufeky...
Now you might think, Zeynep Tufeky, is this some kind of a prominent researcher?
No, this individual has no experience, but is basically a ranter.
And Zeynep Tufekci attacks Tom Jefferson.
In fact, doesn't attack the other researchers.
Kind of singles out this guy because he's the guy who is responsible for the incriminating quote.
The quote is, there's just no evidence that the masks make any difference, full stop.
Boom. And so the New York Times publishes this vituperative attack on this guy.
And normally it should have been like, okay, fine, you've got some left-wing kook who's screaming out there.
But no, apparently Cochran got intimidated, or Cochran got spooked, or Cochran decided it's time to backpedal a little bit.
And so this woman named Carla Sorres Wiser, Carla Sorres Wiser, editor-in-chief of the Cochran Library, she immediately publishes a statement on the website saying that at least, she doesn't say the study was inaccurate or misleading, but she says, quote, that the commentators on the study, people who are disseminating the study and commenting on it,
made, quote, inaccurate and misleading claims about it, and the wording in the summary was, quote, open to misinterpretation for which we apologize.
Okay. So this is kind of interesting, open to misinterpretation, now implying that the study was faulty and not being precise enough and saying things that could be misinterpreted.
Well, what is the misinterpretation?
This wasn't specified.
Was Carla's source wiser pointing to other sources and saying, we actually think that there's evidence that masks really work well?
No, none of that. This was nothing more than a kind of apology for putting out the study.
And Tom Jefferson, the lead author, now has weighed in and basically said, first of all, he was given no notice.
He goes that he just looks and sees that his study with others is somewhat repudiated on the website.
He says, quote, He goes on to say that this is something where the editor-in-chief, who is normally ethically obliged to consult with the authors of the study to look at what the criticisms are and decide if some course of action is necessary, none of this is done. Quote,"...in this instance, Soares Weiser, the editor, has gone outside the normal channels and made decisions without any consultation with the authors of the review.
It is unacceptable." So, this fellow Tom Jefferson says, We're good to go.
And then he makes a point that is worth noting with all medical journals, and really all serious journals of any kind.
He says, quote, This all seems, of course, completely obvious.
And apparently, Cochrane is guilty of this kind of thing before.
There's one other time where they put out a study on a different type of vaccine.
Apparently, this upset the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which is a big promoter of pretty much all kinds of vaccines.
And evidently, the Gates Foundation gives money to Cochrane as an institution.
So Cochrane backpedaled on that study, which apparently led to the resignation of four of its board members.
So Cochrane, it turns out, these guys, they're kind of good at what they do, but they have no backbone, they're invertebrates, and when they're challenged in kind of the public media, they don't understand that they need to hold firm.
If they really respect the work that they're putting out, if they want other people to take it seriously, they've got to show a little more toughness in dealing with ideologically motivated attacks from the left.
♪♪ Debbie and I started eating better this year, and we're on the road to losing some weight, but one of the foods we don't seem to get enough of, and it's a requirement, are veggies.
Well, what better way to get all your fruits and veggies than by taking Balance of Nature.
Balance of Nature is sourced from 31 whole fruits and vegetables.
You'll get maximum nutrition with their star product, which is this, fruits and veggies in a capsule.
So easy. We not only look better, but we feel better, too, with lots of added energy that Balance of Nature gives us.
Start your journey to better health right now.
Take advantage. Balance of Nature's New Year's offer.
$25 off plus free fiber and spice with your first preferred order of fruits and veggies when you use discount code AMERICA. This offer can end at any time, so act now.
Call 800-246-8751.
That's 800-246-8751.
Or go to balanceofnature.com.
Use discount code America. Over the last several months we have seen a number of vicious attacks not just vandalism but firebombing, massive destruction of property against pregnancy resource centers. And what are the pregnancy resource centers? They're pro-life organizations that not only counsel
pregnant women and girls not to get abortions but also provide them with alternatives, provide them with ways that they can carry the baby to term, put it up for adoption, or if they lack resources, provide them with the resources so that they can actually support the child that they want to have.
But maybe we're considering aborting because I can't afford a third kid, that sort of thing.
This is what these pregnancy resource centers do.
And in the aftermath of the Dobbs decision, two things have been happening.
The pregnancy resource centers have been getting attacked, and in some cases attacked by groups that Openly claim to be terrorist groups.
There's a group called James Revenge, which says, quote, We demand the disbanding of all anti-choice establishments.
And they condone and take credit for attacks when they occur on pregnancy centers.
So here you have a natural target for the FBI and the DOJ to go after.
And yet it seems, oddly enough, that they don't.
Now, I saw that Merrick Garland was testifying before Congress, and he was asked about this.
And he goes, oh, no, no, no.
We are completely equitable.
He goes, we prosecute violations of the FACE Act.
The FACE Act is this act.
It's called the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances.
It was passed in the Clinton years in the 1990s.
And for about 25 years, nobody was even charged under the act.
But then suddenly, we saw that the Biden DOJ is hauling up pro-lifers for violating the FACE Act.
And these are typically pro-life protesters who are doing nothing more than standing outside these clinics and trying to get the attention of people going into them and saying, in effect, don't get an abortion.
In one case, of course, the case of Mark Houck, which I've talked about, Mark Houck got into a scuffle with one of the clinic so-called escorts, somebody who works in an abortion clinic.
And this guy wasn't actually escorting anybody.
He was by himself, but he starts screaming at Mark Houck's, what, 10 or 12 year old son and Mark Houck pushes him.
The guy sort of claims that he fell down, but he doesn't really claim he was injured in any serious way.
And yet, here's Mark Hauck facing years in prison for violating the FACE Act, for sort of disrupting access to abortion services.
It goes before a jury, and the jury throws it out.
But it shows the aggression with which the Biden DOJ is prosecuting violations of the FACE Act as they see it coming, if you will, from the right.
But now let's turn to the violence unleashed by the left against these pro-life pregnancy centers.
So, there have been multiple cases and almost no indictments.
Well, there was one indictment. In January, two guys, 27-year-old Caleb Freestone and 23-year-old, were arrested for trying to block people from entering pro-life centers in Florida.
And so, there is this one prosecution.
But it appears to be almost an isolated case.
There was an attack on a Buffalo clinic last June.
By the way, this was an attack that resulted in half a million dollars of physical damage.
And even though the surveillance video of the clinic was turned, the pregnancy center was turned over to the FBI, not a single arrest.
There have been 80 pregnancy resource centers hit with vandalism, with attacks, with threats.
On May 8th of last year, a pro-life public policy group in Madison, Wisconsin was firebombed.
And again, shortly after that attack, James Revenge put out a communique basically saying, look, see, in effect claiming credit or claiming responsibility and saying that this kind of thing needs to go on to protect abortion rights.
And this is not just happening at the level of the...
Of activism on the street.
But you now have also pregnancy centers that are being blocked, evidently, by Google.
So Letitia James basically called out on Google and said to Google, you should not include, when people are searching out pregnancy, what to do about a pregnancy, don't list these pregnancy centers.
Don't list the pro-life centers.
And Google's union, called Alphabet Workers Union, was also pressuring the tech giant to Remove pro-life centers from search results and navigation.
If you go search now, say I'm pregnant, what should I do?
On Google, you'll see that right at the top, you get Planned Parenthood, Planned Parenthood, Planned Parenthood.
So Google is manipulating the search results to promote Planned Parenthood.
Now Google denies it's doing anything sort of fishy or anything suspect.
They say we're kind of We're being neutral and fair in the way that we expose the search results, but you can look and see for yourself that that doesn't appear to be the case.
And pro-lifers are saying across the country that when they complain to the FBI, what are you doing about these attacks that are occurring on our centers?
The FBI's answer is basically, we're working on it.
Can we see the surveillance footage you're reviewing?
No. So, it's not unusual for law enforcement to take this kind of consideration.
A cagey approach.
Normally they do it when they're going after bigger fish.
They won't tell you about a small fry who's caught in a kind of gang operation because they're trying to go after the higher-ups.
But that is not what's happening in this case.
It's not as if the investigation is going slow because they're trying to get the people who are really organizing these attacks.
it appears to be going slow because they're doing very little about it.
I want to invite you to check out my Locals channel. This is where you get sort of Dinesh Unchained, Dinesh Uncensored. And if you're watching the podcast on Rumble, you'll notice that if you look up, you'll see a join button, J-O-I-N, which actually is a way of joining my Locals community. It's free to join. You can check it out, sample it for yourself, decide if you want to become an annual subscriber. Lots of exclusive content including movies, not
just my films, but other people's films, independent films that are really good, including 2,000 Mules. So check it out at Dinesh.Locals.com. I'd love to have you along for this great ride. Again, Dinesh.Locals.com.
I'm continuing my discussion of the inherent limits of human reason by focusing on the philosophy of Immanuel Kant.
Now, Immanuel Kant says that we see and we hear and we smell things in the world, and we imagine or we automatically assume that the things as they are in themselves is the way that we perceive them to be.
In other words, we create a kind of assumption that we have unfiltered access to the world out there.
And Kant says that not only is that not the case, but it cannot be the case.
Now, Kant makes a really critical distinction, a distinction between things in themselves and I'll give a very simple and crude example.
This is actually not from my book, but it helps to illuminate the point.
Think for example about a lamp that is just sitting in the middle of a room.
Now, think about the lamp and then think about the lamp as it's perceived by you.
Now, if the lamp is perceived by you, you're sitting somewhere in that room.
You're not able to see the lamp from every angle.
You only see the lamp from the angle that you're positioned in.
And you see the lamp, obviously, with your own eyes, through your senses, so to speak.
But now, try to imagine if you, and this is really hard to do, but if you were the lamp.
If you were the lamp, your perception or self-perception would be totally different from the perception of, say, Dinesh or Debbie sitting in the room observing the lamp.
And we can say this is true about ourselves and other people as well.
If you're sitting in a room and somebody's observing you, they're seeing you from a particular angle.
They're obviously observing you, the exterior part of you, as their senses can kind of take you in.
But they have no access to you, particularly your inner life.
Naturally, you are in a different position than they are, and their perception of you cannot be equated simply with you.
This is really Kant's point.
So Kant calls things in themselves the noumenon.
And he calls things as they are perceived by us as the phenomenon, or in plural, phenomena.
So, if you have a dog at home, you know what it's like to see the dog, to smell the dog, to hear the dog, to feel the dog.
Well, that is your phenomenal, phenomenal here not meaning awesome, but meaning your phenomenal, your experiential dealings with the dog.
But the dog as it is itself, in itself, that is the noumenon.
What is it like to be that dog?
You'll never know. Because you're not a dog.
The dog is in itself sort of hidden from you.
And what you have are the, let's call it the outward appearances of the dog.
This is the point. And this is what Kant is really getting at by making this distinction, which is, by the way, one of the most famous and important distinctions in Western philosophy, the distinction between things as they are in themselves and We're good to go.
And then there is the tree as perceived by us.
Now, the sound, which is the noise, if you will, that a tree makes when it falls, that can only be apprehended by people who have ears and an inner nervous system to hear it.
Otherwise, there would seem to be no sound, and by no sound, no sound that is perceptible to really anybody.
Now, this is, in a way, a profound idea, but it's also a little bit hard to grasp, and I tend to want to pile on the examples to help us understand it.
Consider, for example, a camera or a tape recorder.
A camera, being the kind of instrument it is, can record a picture.
A tape recorder, being the kind of instrument it is, can record sound.
But see, a camera cannot record sound.
And a tape recorder cannot record sight.
And neither of them can record smell or even touch.
You can see a picture, you can kind of imagine what it's like to feel something, but you can't feel it through the camera.
The camera doesn't have that kind of access.
Why? Because a camera is limited by the apparatus that defines what a camera is and what a camera does.
And this is Kant's point.
You can think of our eyes as a camera.
You can think of our ears as a sort of tape recorder, which can record sound.
And similarly, you can think of our senses of smell and touch.
But, says Kant, we cannot dogmatically assume that because we've got this kind of five-node instrument for perceiving reality, that therefore, that's all the reality that there is in the world.
And anything that can't be seen with our eyes, heard by ears, touched by hands, doesn't exist.
I mean, Kant goes, what kind of narrow dogmatism does it take to say something like that?
This is sort of like...
You know, a bat which operates with echolocation by hearing sound and moving in response to sound, saying that basically there's no such thing as sight just because the bat itself doesn't have sight.
The bat concludes that sight itself is an illusion, it's a superstition.
People who say that their sight are actually just making stuff up.
No! The bat itself just doesn't have that kind of apparatus and therefore the bat is limited.
By being a bat and having the kind of nervous system, by having the kind of perception that a bat has.
So we're going to be using this distinction in future days to show that reason is limited not only by the limits of reality, the world out there, but also limited by the perceptual apparatus that we bring to understanding and perceiving the world.
Subscribe to the Dinesh D'Souza Podcast on Apple, Google, and Spotify.
▲
Export Selection