All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 14, 2023 - Dinesh D'Souza
50:17
NO EVIDENCE REALLY? Dinesh D’Souza Podcast Ep664
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Coming up, I'll refute the absurd media insistence that there's no evidence, no evidence, tying Joe Biden to the crimes of the Biden family.
I'll explain how a White House letter to the media conveys its fears over the impeachment inquiry, And I'll marvel at a New Mexico Democratic governor openly promoting gun restrictions that defy both the federal and the state constitution.
If you're listening on Apple, Google or Spotify or watching on Rumble, please subscribe to my channel.
all this did in as just who's a 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.
With Kevin McCarthy's green lighting up an impeachment inquiry, right away the left and the Democrats are springing into defensive position.
And their initial approach is always ridicule.
There's absolutely nothing here.
This must be some kind of a joke.
And And the Republicans have nothing better to do.
And moreover, all of this, far from putting Joe Biden in a bad light, actually puts him in a good light.
In fact, it goes on to reassure his election next year.
So these are the several lines of defense that are emerging.
Let's look at them one by one.
Here's MSNBC. They had John Meekham on.
And he goes, Republicans needed a new season of something, so they dropped impeachment inquiry.
So, Republicans have nothing else to do.
They are always looking for some kind of issue, some sort of red meat to feed the base.
They decided, well, it's kind of time to deliver the impeachment morsel.
That's John Mecham.
And here is Morning Joe.
This impeachment inquiry is going to help the Democrats politically.
Now, first of all, let's assume that's the case.
Let's assume that the impeachment, in reality, is going to be a big win for the Democrats.
Why wouldn't morning Joe be for it?
Why wouldn't he be saying, great, you know what, guys, I support the impeachment?
Because after all, he wants to help the Democrats.
He wants Joe Biden to be re-elected.
So if he really thought, but he doesn't really think, he doesn't think this at all.
In fact, He's trying to con the Republicans into, hey guys, you don't want to do this.
This is going to backfire on you big time.
And knowing full well that the opposite is the case.
And then, of course, there's the good old New York Times, which always takes perhaps the more extreme and more ludicrous position of all.
And that is, I'm now quoting,"...Mr.
Biden's devotion to his son means he has long followed Hunter's lead." Allies of the president have deep respect for the bond, but have privately criticized Mr.
Biden's apparent inability to say no when Hunter sought to pull him into his business dealings.
So according to this line of thinking, Joe Biden is the victim.
He's guilty of nothing more than being an affectionate father who can't say no to his son.
And so, Hunter Biden is pulling the strings.
Hunter Biden is luring Joe in.
Joe doesn't really want to go, but is bound to his son by nothing more than the bonds of love.
Of course, the reality is the exact opposite.
Joe is this cynical Don Corleone.
He is sucking his family members into the orbit.
I'm not saying that they're innocent.
They are co-conspirators.
They are part of the Biden family racket, and they are presumably willing members of that racket.
But who's the head of the racket?
Who's putting it together?
Who has the product to sell?
That's Joe Biden. Joe Biden is the product.
He is in fact, as Devin Archer, Hunter Biden's business partner and friend said, he is the brand.
That's what they're selling, Joe Biden, not Hunter Biden.
There's nothing to sell with Hunter Biden.
And so the unifying theme of all this from the Democrats, from the media is there's no evidence.
Now, the ones that wanna be a little more cautious, who kind of realize that the evidence is going to be coming out.
I hope it comes out in prime time.
It's going to be hard to deny.
And so they pivot back to there's no direct evidence.
The idea here is that there could be a corrupt family circle, but Joe Biden is not driving it.
Joe Biden is simply one of the members of that family.
So there could be corruption in the family, but that doesn't mean that he's part of that corruption.
Now, here is Dan Bongino responding to this.
He goes, yeah, the Democrats are correct.
Outside of the bank records, the suspicious activity reports, the wire transfers, the private bank transactions, the LLCs, the texts, the emails, the WhatsApp messages, the photos of Joe with Hunter's business partners, the voicemails to his son, the two business partners saying Joe is the brand, the big guy, the chairman, the two whistleblowers testimony, the recorded phone calls between Biden and Poroshenko, the video of Joe Biden bragging about firing the Ukrainian prosecutor, Hunter's statements
that he's giving half of his income to his dad.
Aside from all that, there's no evidence.
Admittedly. And so Babylon Bee sort of took another line, you know, sort of, Democrats are demanding a little more than merely bank records and shell companies and video and recorded conversations and photographs.
Democrats aren't going to be satisfied with that kind of evidence.
They want some real evidence.
So, all right, look, let's...
Let's cut to the chase here and say that McCarthy has made the right move.
And he's made the right move because he's taken an issue that until now the Democrats are able to say something completely different and talk to their own base and they have a better reach among independents than we do.
So, they're able to go, oh yeah, it's just the Republicans saying what they usually say, and because our media outlets are more limited, we can't reach their audience.
But the beauty of the impeachment inquiry is that it has the capacity to do that.
There's no way to have an impeachment inquiry.
There's no way to have hearings.
There's no way to have testimony without it being covered in the mainstream media, without it being on the networks.
They might try to downplay it.
They might try to spin it, and they certainly will.
The facts are going to get out.
At some point, people are going to go, well, yeah, well, what do you make of all those companies?
Well, what do you make of all this corruption?
Money going into one LLC, then going into another LLC, then going into another LLC, and then going into the Biden family's personal accounts?
If that's not corruption, what is?
Fruits, veggies, and fiber are all key to a healthy diet.
Now, Debbie and I are on a good health journey, but we struggle to eat enough fruits, veggies, and fiber.
Lucky for us, we discovered balance of nature.
And what better way to get all your fruits and veggies plus fiber than with balance of nature?
Here's balance of nature's fruits and veggies in a capsule, so easy, made from whole fresh produce.
The produce is powdered after an advanced vacuum-cold process, which stabilizes the maximum nutrient content.
And this is balance of nature's fiber and spice, a proprietary blend of fiber and 12 spices for overall and digestive health.
Join Debbie and me. Start your journey to better health right now.
Call 800-246-8751 or go to balanceofnature.com.
You'll get 35% off your first preferred order by using discount code America.
Again, that's balanceofnature.com or call 800-246-8751.
Get 35% off your first preferred order by using discount code America.
The White House Legal Counsel's Office has drafted a letter...
to the major media asking them to, quote, ramp up their scrutiny Not of Joe Biden, not of the corruption racket, not of the bribery scheme, not of the money going into all these LLCs and ending up in the Biden family, not of how a guy like Joe Biden who makes a congressional Senate salary and now just a president salary, how does somebody like that become a multi-millionaire?
How does a person like that own multiple homes?
How is it that all their family members live in a level of luxury That makes them seem like centimillionaires, if not billionaires.
How is that possible? Where's the money coming from?
Who's paying it and for what?
So the White House legal counsel is like, don't look at any of that.
Put that out of bounds.
Look at the Republicans.
In other words, look at the people who are trying to look into all that.
For, quote, opening an impeachment inquiry based on lies.
What are the lies?
Are the lies that is Joe Biden not involved in his family's bribery scheme?
Was he truthful when he said that he knew nothing about his son's business dealings?
Was he truthful when he said that he had no involvement in them whatsoever?
Yes. Is it a fact that Hunter Biden and the other Biden family members, Frank Biden, James Biden, is it not true that they've been selling Biden family influence?
Is it a fact or not that the people who are bribing the Bidens, including the Ukrainians, to get a prosecutor fired who was looking into corruption at Burisma, did Biden get those guys fired?
Yes or no? Yes.
So... So what's happening here is far from the White House trying to curb the lies, the White House is trying to curb the truth.
And they're actively pushing a narrative.
And what's interesting is that this now opens the door to the White House The whole White House being complicit in the Biden scandal.
In other words, at the beginning, it was a Biden scandal.
Joe Biden was the crook.
But let's remember that in Watergate, for example, once Nixon was drawn into it, it wasn't just Nixon.
Ehrlichman got involved.
Haldeman got involved.
And so other people, top people in the White House became part of the cover up and in fact, ultimately were held accountable to it.
So the point here is that by all these people covering up the crimes of Joe Biden and the Biden family, They become accessories to those crimes.
That is really worth noting.
This letter, by the way, was drafted by Ian Sams, who's a spokesman for the White House Counsel's Office.
And I sort of am amazed at the effrontery of the letter.
Think of it. You have a government.
There's an issue coming up, which is an impeachment inquiry.
You're going to have the House Republicans saying X, and you're going to have the White House saying Y, and there's going to be a back and forth going between those two.
The media is supposed to cover it.
They're supposed to examine, investigate, look into it, present the claims and counterclaims.
And the White House is saying, don't do that.
The White House is basically saying, listen, circle the wagons.
Come on to our side.
We kind of know you're on our side anyway.
Well, why don't you openly join our side?
Become a propaganda wing of the U.S. government.
I mean, some of these people are playing this role anyway.
In a weird way, this letter is only making explicit that there's a complete understanding, not just on the part of the media, that they are apparatchiks.
But the Biden administration treats them as such.
It's almost like Goebbels sending out a memo to all these people who work for him, except the difference is that in the case of Goebbels, they actually work for him.
He pays their salary. But here, the White House doesn't pay these people's salary, but it's basically acting like you all know that you're an extension, an arm of the Democratic Party, kind of in the way the Ku Klux Klan was an arm of the Democratic Party in the 1910s and 1920s.
And it's sort of like, why don't you just tailor your coverage to help us?
So, a lot of people in the media, as I mentioned, already see themselves kind of this way.
I don't know if you saw the interview with Philip Bump.
He was interviewed on a podcast.
This is the national correspondent of the Washington Post.
And Philip Bump was asked, well, you know, Hunter Biden says that I was given half my money to dad.
And so, when you say that there's no evidence...
Well, isn't that evidence? And you can see Bump was getting extremely uncomfortable and angry and threatening to walk off the set.
Why? I mean, here's a guy in the media.
You think his job is to evaluate evidence?
You think that he would concede?
He'd say, well, okay, well, that is some evidence, but we don't know if Hunter Biden, in fact, gave his money to Biden, to Joe Biden, the dad.
There's still things that need to be proved.
But no, you could tell that it's almost like this guy was an employee of the Biden administration administration.
And so he became visibly shaken just by raising this topic.
And so this is the weird, symbiotic, incestuous relationship between the regime, the Biden regime, and the media.
The Biden regime is giving marching orders.
There's an impeachment coming up.
It's going to be, you know, it has the risk of making us look really bad.
So you guys need to sort of really ramp up your...
And let's think about it. These are the...
Biden has been lying about his involvement from the beginning, and that is now really admitted.
The media tried to cover up for Joe Biden on the authenticity of the Hunter Biden laptop.
They suppressed the Hunter Biden laptop story before the election.
So they already have a horrible record, not of reporting the truth, but distorting the truth.
And I guess that's kind of what the Biden administration is telling the media.
Listen, we like the fact that you have become chronic liars on our behalf, and we are reaching a point where some even more intense lying may be needed, and we expect you to be up to the job.
If you've seen me on the podcast from a year ago and now, big difference. Debbie and I had a New Year's resolution to lose some weight.
Thanks for watching.
Debbie goes, thanks for leaving me out.
Well, thankfully, PhD weight loss came to our rescue.
Debbie's lost 24 pounds.
I've lost 27. We're both now on maintenance.
The program is based on science and nutrition.
No injections, no pills, no long hours in the gym, no severe calorie restriction, just good, sound, scientifically proven nutrition.
It's so simple, they make it easy by providing 80% of your food at no additional cost.
They tell you when and what to eat.
And guess what?
You can do this without ever being hungry.
The founder, Dr. Ashley Lucas, has her PhD in chronic disease and sports nutrition.
She's also a registered dietitian.
She helps people lose weight and most important, maintain that weight loss for life.
If you're ready to take the step of losing weight like Debbie and I have, call PhD Weight Loss and Nutrition at 864-644-1900.
You can also find them online at myphdweightloss.com.
The number again to call, 864-644-1900.
Sometimes you have people who never learn.
Even though they experience something kind of painful, they go, yeah, time to do it again.
And this is the case with the private liberal arts college, a very prestigious college, but one that has been taking some hits lately, and that is Oberlin College in Ohio.
Oberlin, actually, amusingly enough, is one of the colleges to which I applied and was admitted all those many years ago when I was first applying to college in, what, 1978, I guess it was, during the year of my exchange program in Patagonia, Arizona. Well, Oberlin College was taught a very bitter lesson by a local bakery in the town of Oberlin, Ohio.
The bakery is called Gibson's Bakery.
And I've talked about this before on the podcast.
Basically, there were some Oberlin students who were trying to rob the bakery and shoplift from the bakery.
They were busted. But because the student or students were black, the whole college rallied behind them, acted like the bakery was racist. The dean accused the bakery of racism. There were demonstrations. Essentially, the bakery was put in a horrible position. And they might even have been forced to either shut down or at least hang their heads in shame. And the bakery goes, we were never guilty of this.
We've been defamed. And they filed a defamation suit and they won.
And Oberlin was ordered to pay more than $36 million.
Now, obviously the bakery didn't suffer $36 million in unsold muffins or unsold omelets.
But in these defamation suits, when the behavior is particularly egregious, There can be punitive damages.
And that's what drove the number up to $36 million.
Well, Oberlin probably thought initially, well, no problem.
We're not going to have to pay.
We have insurance against all this.
But guess what? The insurance companies stepped in and said, we're not going to pay.
And they said, we're not going to pay because, first of all, punitive damages suggest bad conduct on your part.
So this is not just a case where there was a defamation and there was a judgment and we're paying lost revenues or medical bills.
No, this is the result of your behavior.
But second, apparently Oberlin had been approached in pretrial negotiations with a chance to settle the lawsuit.
And at one point, they were talking about settling the lawsuit for a million dollars or thereabouts, so a much smaller sum.
But Oberlin being the arrogant university that it is, and a lot of universities become very arrogant when they are in college towns.
Why? Because they feel like they own the town.
Dartmouth is the same way. Dartmouth is in Hanover, New Hampshire.
The college is the largest landowner, the largest employer, certainly the most powerful political force in the region.
So they feel like, we run the place.
And I think I'm sure Oberlin thought kind of the same thing.
Yeah, we kind of own the system.
No one's really going to give us this kind of negative verdict.
No big deal. We're not going to settle with these peons.
In fact, they depend on us.
We don't depend on them.
And so as a consequence, Oberlin refused the settlement.
And so the insurance company is like, we would have paid the smaller amount.
But now that you decided to push ahead, you got this big bad verdict.
Too bad for you.
So, all of this just leads up to my story, which is that you'd think Oberlin would be like, you know what, we've got to be a little more careful.
This was reckless and irresponsible behavior.
But no. Apparently what's going on now is Oberlin is trying to bring the hammer down on a women's lacrosse coach.
This is the head coach, Kim Russell.
Because she has spoken out against sort of radical gender ideology.
In other words, she's spoken out against the idea of biological males playing women's sports.
So, evidently, when Leah Thomas won the NCAA women's 500-yard freestyle...
This woman, Kim Russell, reposted an Instagram post that basically congratulated a woman named Emma Weant as, quote, the real winner.
So the idea here is that, look, Leah Thomas may have gotten the award and stood on the podium, but the real winner was the fastest woman in the race, and that is Emma Weant.
Now... Kim Russell, the head coach at Oberlin, has said that this is an important issue because she's been a champion, a defender of women's sports and women's rights for a long time.
And she says, quote, I can't be quiet on this.
I'm a former athlete.
I'm a veteran coach.
She talks about the fact that there are women who have been seriously injured by biological males playing in co-ed hockey games, for example.
And so, as soon as she posts this on Instagram, the trouble begins.
Apparently, a team member shows the post to the athletic director, Natalie Winklefuss, and then there's a series of meetings, a series of threatened disciplinary actions, formal warnings, and all of this has created what Kim...
What Kim Russell calls a hostile work environment.
So what have they been doing?
First of all, they always round up the team to start denouncing you.
Almost like the team now doesn't want to be coached by the head coach.
And then the college takes the position, they say, listen, freedom of speech is a cornerstone of our democracy, but employees should not post negative posts that have an impact on their ability to effectively do the job.
As if to say that speaking out in defense of women's rights is somehow undermining her ability to coach this team.
And on and on it goes.
The athletic director and the assistant dean, a guy named Craig Jantz, berated Russell, saying she was, quote, filled with hate.
They say that opposing Oberlin College's beliefs, which are very pro-trans, is a problem for your employment.
They call the environment that she's created, quote, transgressive, homophobic, and unsafe.
The assistant dean told Russell,"...stop being a unicorn and just be a horse." So, what does that mean?
Stop being an individual.
Stop having a unique point of view.
Stop breaking with the herd.
You're one horse like a lot of horses here at Oberlin.
Just do your job and pull the cart.
Just be a horse." And so all of this is going on, and I smell a big lawsuit here, because I think that this could be bigger than the Gibson's Bakery lawsuit.
And I'm sure that Kim Russell, the head lacrosse coach, is thinking about it, because...
This is a woman who's being discriminated against, who's being hounded.
They might be trying to push her out of her job.
They certainly seem to be making it impossible for her to do her job.
And she too, like Gibson's Bakery, might have to have her day in court.
If aches and pains are your problem, Relief Factor is your solution.
Debbie and I started taking Relief Factor two years ago.
The difference we've seen in our joints, nothing short of amazing.
Aches and pains are totally gone thanks to this 100% drug-free solution called Relief Factor.
How does it work? Relief Factor supports your body's fight against inflammation that's the source of aches and pains.
The vast majority of people who try Relief Factor order more because it works for them.
Debbie's a true believer. She can now do exercises that for a long time she wasn't able to do.
So Relief Factor's been a real game-changer for her, her aunt, other members of our family, Mike in the studio right here, 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 or call 800-4-RELIEF to find out more about the software.
Once again, it's relieffactor.com or call 800-4-RELIEF. Feel the difference.
Shortly after a tragic incident of gun violence in New Mexico, the governor of the state, a Democrat, a woman named Michelle Lujan Grisham, decided to take, let's say, the law into her own hands.
And what I mean by that is not, well, normally when you say take the law into your own hands, you mean somehow engage in some kind of lawless act.
And well, I guess that is sort of what I do mean because, but in a different way, the governor decides, I'm going to make a unilateral decision that in the aftermath of this tragic shooting, no one in New Mexico is allowed to carry a gun in public.
Now, This is a ban on the public carrying of guns that is against the U.S. Constitution, and as it turns out, it's also against the New Mexico Constitution.
But when people pointed this out, the governor took the view, well, let the court sort that out.
So what if the police think that it's not constitutional?
Policemen aren't the final word on what's constitutional.
And her implication was, well, I am.
Or at least I'm going to make the decision and it's going to be in effect until some court says differently.
Now, interestingly, shortly after she made the decision, in comes a court that puts an injunction on it and says, sorry, you can't do this.
This is actually not allowed.
And that's impressive and it sort of shuts it down right away.
But I still want to highlight the arrogance of this governor Making a decision that she can read the Constitution as well as anyone else.
She knows what the, and she has a legal office that advises her, but she obviously decided, I'm a democratic governor in a democratic state. I can kind of do whatever I want.
I don't know if these governors have become emboldened after COVID when they were able to, you know, we're going to close the churches down.
We're going to make sure you can't get to your job.
We're going to force you to be vaccinated.
So all of this creates a certain arrogance of power.
And I wouldn't be surprised if that's part of what has now infected the psychology of governors like Michelle Lujan Grisham.
But her own attorney general, a guy named Raul Torres.
I mean, let's think about it. This guy is a Democrat.
In fact, this guy is a Biden appointee, and he wrote a letter to the governor basically saying, if you have this ban in place, I'm not going to enforce it.
And this is a very rare—this doesn't happen too often with Democrats, where prominent Democrat— And in this case, a Democrat, who's the Attorney General, just goes foursquare against the Democratic governor.
But it looks like he...
I'm looking at his letter here, and it's a very well-worded letter.
He begins by noting that the Second Amendment...
And he quotes court decisions to this effect, is not merely applicable to the federal government, but has also been found by the court to be equally applicable to the states.
Now, this is an important point because we have certain rights that are rights against the federal government, and the states are not bound by them.
The states have their own constitution, they have their own rules, and so something that might limit only Congress or limit only the executive branch of the federal government doesn't necessarily limit a governor in a particular state.
But it turns out that the First Amendment, like the Second Amendment, applies to the states as well.
but The New Mexico Constitution, the state constitution, also has its own version of the Second Amendment.
And this Attorney General quotes from it.
New Mexico provision specifically applies to, quote, security and defense, as well as to lawful hunting, recreational use, and, quote, other lawful purposes.
New Mexico Constitution, Article 2, Section 6.
So, in other words, according to the New Mexico Constitution, you can carry a gun as long as it is for these lawful purposes.
Now, the Second Amendment is not unlimited.
It doesn't mean that you can always carry a gun everywhere.
There are obviously restrictions in hospitals and government buildings and school properties and so on.
So, it is not as if the Second Amendment has no restrictions whatsoever or no limitations whatsoever.
But the court, in a decision called the Bruin Decision that the Attorney General quotes, he says, look, it doesn't matter what the government's objective is.
The government can say, oh, we're facing a crisis, oh, crime is too high, oh, there's this, oh, there's an emergency.
He goes, the reason doesn't really matter because the Constitution is not overridden by a governor simply making a verbal declaration to one effect or the other.
If a regulation interferes with an individual's right to arm self-defense, it is presumptively unconstitutional.
And then it goes on to say that all citizens have the right to possess firearms in public, and the governor's decision to outlaw this goes against the historical tradition of gun regulation, the specific wording of the constitutions, and is, quote, unlikely to survive judicial scrutiny.
And then the letter just ends by saying, Um...
Hey, listen, there's always usually a small olive branch at the end.
I'm open to joining you to, quote, assist you in building a safer community without sacrificing the constitutional rights which we have sworn an oath to preserve.
Protect and defend.
So this is a rare demonstration of constitutional fealty and also political independence and a certain element even, I would argue, of bravery on the part of Raul Torres, Democratic Attorney General of New Mexico.
Michael Lindell has a passion to help you get the best sleep of your life.
He didn't just stop with the MyPillow pillows.
He also created the Giza Dream bedsheets.
We have the bedsheets all over our house.
We love them. The sheets look and feel great, which means an even better night's sleep, which is crucial for our overall health.
Mike found the world's best cotton called Giza.
It's ultra soft and breathable, but also extremely durable.
And Mike's latest deal, Sale of the Year.
For a limited time, you get 50% off the Giza Dream Sheets, marking prices down as low as $29.98, depending on the size.
Go to MyPillow.com, enter promo code Dinesh.
There you'll find not only this great offer, but also deep discounts on all the MyPillow products, the MyPillow robes, the 2.0 mattress topper, the kitchen towel sets, and so much more.
The number to call, 800-876-0227.
Once again, it's 800-876-0227 or go to MyPillow.com.
Don't forget to use the promo code, D-I-N-E-S-H, Dinesh.
One of the signature moves of the left on controversial issues like trans ideology, but this also applies to climate change and so many other issues, is to claim that there is a scientific consensus or unanimity on That vindicates their side of the issue.
So, 99% of scientists agree with the fact that the Earth is warming and that human beings are the cause of it.
Now, that is not in fact true, but they massage the way that these poles are conducted.
It's sort of like 99% of scientists agree that there's a greenhouse effect, which is to say if you release more carbon in the air, Air gets warmer.
That's what the agreement is on.
And there isn't that kind of unanimity on the rest of it.
Well, the same is true with the trans topic, except here the unanimity is manufactured a different way.
It's not by just twisting the available research.
It's by intimidating people who do research that shows something different from the left's preferred narrative.
And in this connection, I want to talk about an article written by a professor of psychology at Northwestern University.
It's published by the free press, thefp.com.
That's the... That's the website.
This is Barry Weiss's website, which publishes a lot of good stuff.
So Michael Bailey, a professor of psychology, he's been a professor for 30 plus years.
He's been a researcher for 40 years.
And his specialty is...
Topics around sexual differences, sexual orientation.
He also studies transsexualism or transgenderism.
He's also studied IQ. And he says he's published over 100 academic articles.
And his specific field of study is, in fact, sexual orientation, whether it's a product of genetic or environmental influences, childhood precursors of homosexuality, and so on.
And he says, I have never had an article retracted by a journal until now.
So this is what he's talking about.
He says, earlier this year, he publishes an article in a prestigious academic journal called Archives of Sexual Behavior.
But less than three months later, the academic publisher of archives, this is the Springer Group, it's called the Springer Nature Group, We'll come to what that supposed violation was.
But Michael Bailey goes on to say, look, retraction of scientific articles is extremely rare because scholarly journals have pretty rigorous procedures before they publish an article at all.
First of all, the Editor or editors of those journals tend to be experts in areas.
If they're not experts, they send the article out to other people to review, peer review, and then they publish the article.
So unless it came out that the author had plagiarized or that there was data that had been made up or that there were some basic concerns about the integrity of a study, a study is typically never retracted.
But Michael Bailey goes, my article was not retracted for any of these reasons.
In fact, it wasn't retracted for any reputable intellectual reason at all.
The real reason for retracting it is simply that its conclusion did not agree with the agenda of the trans activists.
So let's look at it. The article is called Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria.
Parent reports on 1,655 possible cases.
And interestingly, the author, Michael Bailey, collaborated with a mom who herself had a daughter who had this phenomenon called rapid-onset gender dysphoria.
Now, what is rapid-onset gender dysphoria?
Basically, it's this.
You have a young girl...
Usually it is a girl.
And she has a normal life.
She has the normal issues that girls deal with, issues of insecurity, issues of do the boys like me, issues about other girls are running me down at school or this or that.
And then when she becomes a teenager, she suddenly, and this is the rapid part of it, comes to the idea, my problem is I'm really not a girl at all.
In fact, I might be better off as a boy.
And this rapid sort of inner flip, I say rapid because these are girls who are, you know, you may have a girl who's like from two years old.
I'm a boy. I'm really a boy.
Why do I have a girl's name?
That would be someone who's...
It might have gender dysphoria, but it's certainly not rapid because they've had it all along.
Rapid gender dysphoria means I suddenly, in a short period of time, I'm dealing with some kind of an issue or crisis and I come to conclude that the real explanation of this crisis is I'm in the wrong gender.
I'm in the wrong body.
So... So they want to transition now to the opposite sex.
And, says Michael Bailey, that until recently, by and large, you've had people, and people who are treated for gender dysphoria are people who have, from very early childhood, had this issue.
And there are some who do. From an early childhood, a biological boy who thinks he's a girl, or a biological girl who thinks she's a boy, this is something that the psychiatric community has been dealing with.
But there's evidently become a sort of mini-epidemic, a surge, if you will, of vulnerable teens, mostly girls, but not all girls, who suddenly announce that they're the other gender.
And what makes this even more disturbing is that initially it may simply be, I'm going to dress like a boy, I'm going to cut my hair short, but pretty soon it can go to the next step, which is I'm going to get a mastectomy, I'm going to get testosterone injections, and so on.
Michael Bailey says that there's a lot of evidence that in progressive communities, you have multiple girls in the same peer group, sometimes in the same school, sometimes in the same community, who simultaneously or almost simultaneously announce that they are all trans.
So think about it. What is the probability that you sort of have this desire to transition kind of coincidentally occur to people who happen to be kind of all having lunch with one another or who hang out together.
All this, the leader of the group decides that she's going to be, she's going to transition and all the others go, oh yeah, we are too.
We are all really boys and so on.
So there's been apparently a five to tenfold surge in In this kind of trans self-identification.
And virtually no data on the subject.
That is what causes Michael Bailey to go, listen, this is a very interesting and weird phenomenon.
It needs to be studied.
We honor you, Father, for all that you've done for us.
We honor you, Father, for all that you've done for us.
Amen.
Chief Division Council and DOJ have approved a no-not breach.
We want the subject to be on display, doing the walk of shame, full visual impact.
Any questions? Are we becoming a police state?
Government told American citizens they couldn't go to church on Sunday.
For the first time in my life, I'm saying to myself, am I going to get a knock at the door?
FBI, warrant! Come to the door now!
The Patriot Act and FISA were used against Donald Trump.
These individuals have commissioned the biggest propaganda play in U.S. history.
They don't go after the people that rigged the election.
They go after the people that want to find out what the hell happened.
We don't need to have a crime.
What we need is a person to look at.
And then we go find out what crime you did.
FBI! Our focus is shifting.
Our main priority as a bureau is going to be domestic terrorism.
It really paints anybody who's right of center.
If you're a pro-life, pro-family Catholic, then they define you as radical.
These are anti-government.
We are freedom of religion and freedom of speech.
Violent extremists, and they must be dealt with.
We can do anything we want.
The term rapid onset gender dysphoria was coined by a woman who taught at Yale named Lisa Littman, and she was apparently somehow elbowed out of Yale by, again, political pressure because she was identifying this phenomenon.
a kind of gender confusion that rapidly occurs to people that is really more or quite likely to be Not necessarily that they are trans, but they are people dealing with issues of depression, or they're dealing with some other problem in their lives, and they see this somehow as a remedy or as a solution.
So it's a kind of, you may almost call it a mental confusion or even disorder, and And so Michael Bailey decides to collaborate with a co-author and study this.
And they do a survey based on, well, over 1,500 adolescent and young children.
Three-fourths of them are female.
and they publish their findings which basically go, this is in fact a kind of mental confusion.
Because first of all, you see that people may have emotional problems, but once they begin this transitioning process, those emotional problems don't necessarily go away.
In fact, in some cases they become worse.
You find also that these young girls and sometimes young boys, when they say, I might think that I'm a boy, I might think I'm a girl, they are then pressured by a gender specialist to undergo transitioning.
So, in other words, that doesn't necessarily become their decision, but it becomes something that they are led into.
Hey, have you thought about this?
Hey, you may want to try that.
Hey, let me show you, and so on.
And I think what makes the effect of this study so powerful is that According to Bailey, all the parents we surveyed were progressive.
So, in other words, you're not dealing with parents because sometimes the left makes it sound like, listen, if there are parents who don't like any of this, that's because they're right-wingers.
They're raised in a deeply religious background.
They're not willing to confront the possibility that their child is really trans.
So, this guy goes, guess what?
We kind of eliminated that by focusing on parents in progressive communities who have progressive views.
And so this is not a case where parental expectations are driving the way in which the topic is approached.
Nevertheless, the moment the article appears, the trans activists begin to lobby the publisher of the archives, which is to say the people at the Springer Group.
They also begin to lobby the International Academy of Sex Research, which is called IASR. Evidently, the journal is edited by a prominent psychologist.
His name is Kenneth Zucker.
He's a major figure in sex research.
So they begin to sort of put pressure on him.
And so what happens is the pressure really works.
And so the journal then says, you violated our guidelines.
Okay, what guidelines?
Well, it turns out they say the guidelines that Michael Bailey has violated is that the parents didn't, quote, provide written informed consent to participate in the scholarly research.
But, says Michael Bailey, that's simply not true.
In fact, he quotes from his own form, we did inform participants that we would publish their data.
At the end of the survey, participants were told, quote, we will publish our data on our website when we have a large enough sample, end quote.
So, the idea that this was some violation of the procedures of doing a study because the people in the study weren't told we might publish the data, not true.
This was just a pretext.
Really, the journal didn't want to have to deal with these quarrelsome activists, and I grant you, many of them can be extremely annoying, extremely persistent, extremely threatening.
They make all kinds of accusations.
They call you all kinds of names.
But the really good news is that this Michael Bailey is not deterred.
He goes, listen, they might have pulled my article, but far from this undermining my resolve to deal with this subject, far from this demoralizing me and causing me to quit, I'm gonna move ahead.
I'm gonna do an even bigger scholarly study.
So he's teamed up with Lisa Littman and Kenneth Zucker, the editor of the journal, and the three of them together are going to do an important study on this topic.
And I don't think that one is likely to be successfully suppressed.
I'm in the opening chapter of Solzhenitsyn's Gulag Archipelago and he's describing the process and the variety of arrests.
Now, it's important to remember that he is describing a fully developed police state.
We are not quite in that position.
What we are seeing is in many different areas an encroachment on our basic liberties.
We see political prisoners.
We see surveillance.
We see censorship. So a number of the ingredients of police states are now fully present here in the United States.
I think it's probably even accurate to say that virtually no one is safe anymore.
But in the Soviet Union, you have a police state that is Completely has established its iron control over the society and is arresting people left and right for all kinds of reasons that Solzhenitsyn will get into.
He talks about the organs.
He means the organs of the Communist Party, the organs of the state.
And so here we go.
One has to give the organs their due.
In age... In an age when public speeches, the plays in our theaters, and women's fashions all seem to come off assembly lines, arrests can be of the most varied kind.
So he's being, again, this is that Solzhenitsyn sense of irony.
He's like, yeah, we're in a society where things are kind of uniform.
Everything is standardized.
Everything is according to a formula.
It's done one way and not another way.
But he goes, gee, not with arrests.
Arrests can be just multifaceted, very varied.
And he gives examples. They take you aside in a factory corridor after you've had your pass checked, and you're arrested.
They take you from a military hospital with a temperature of 102, as they did with Ann's Bernstein, and the doctor will not raise a peep about your arrest.
Just let him try.
So, the factor of intimidation.
The doctor's like, what's going on?
but even he realizes I better zip it because I don't want to be arrested myself.
They'll take you right off the operating table as they took N.M. Vorobiev, a school inspector in 1936, in the middle of an operation for stomach ulcer and drag you off to a cell as they did him, half alive and all bloody.
Wow.
In the gastrodome, the fancy food store, you're invited to a special order department and arrested there.
So suddenly they go, hey, we've got some cool stuff for you to taste.
Come on, come on over here. We've got, this is our gourmet section.
We want you to sample some.
You're like, oh, some caviar?
Really? Let me, oh, some vodka?
You head over there. They're waiting to arrest you.
You are arrested by a religious pilgrim with whom you have put up for the night, quote, for the sake of Christ.
Wow. This is a secret police officer disguised as a monk.
Oh, please, can I stay for the night?
Oh, sure. Come on in.
We've got an extra room.
He comes in. You've let him in.
He puts the handcuffs on you.
You're arrested. You're arrested by a meterman who has come to read your electric meter.
You're arrested by a bicyclist who has run into you on the street, by a railway conductor, a taxi driver, a savings bank teller, the manager of a movie theater.
So, a society where, as Solzhenitsyn describes it, there is danger all around you.
And there's danger when you least expect it.
Why? Because this is danger that springs at you in the normal rhythm of life.
You're chatting with a bank teller.
You're making a deposit. You're in the grocery store.
So, informants and disguised police are all over the place.
And then Solzhenitsyn steps back and he muses.
He goes, sometimes arrests even seem to be a game.
There's so much superfluous imagination, so much well-fed energy invested in them.
After all, the victim would not resist anyway.
He makes the point that a lot of people are meekly willing to be arrested.
In fact, he says, sometimes they would even accept arrest if they were just invited to show up to the police station to be arrested.
In fact, he says, in fact, that's the way collective farmers are arrested.
Who wants to go all the way to their huts at night with no roads to travel on?
They are summoned to the village Soviet and arrested there.
Manual workers are called into the office.
Two of the large groups of people arrested, peasants...
And then laborers.
But chasing the peasants down in their small farms where they could be, you know, armed with a pickaxe or a hatchet, you don't want that.
So it's like, hey guys, all of you show up to the village Soviet, the collective, the central kind of office where you get your various permits and forms and you just arrest them when they show up.
Same with the manual laborers.
Come to the office. Come to the loading dock.
Boom. All of you are then promptly arrested.
So, for several decades, political arrests were distinguished in our country precisely by the fact that people were arrested who were guilty of nothing and were therefore unprepared to put up any resistance whatsoever.
So, here Solzhenitsyn making a point about human nature.
Hey, guess what? If you're a crook, if you're an embezzler, if you're someone who's recently broken out of prison, if you're someone who's a bad guy, you expect them to be on the lookout for you.
So you deploy all your resources of cunning to block them, to figure out, how do I outwit them?
How do I outpace them?
But on the other hand, if you haven't done anything wrong, you're like, who's going to arrest me?
Why? So, you're not on your guard.
And so, when the arrest comes, it is all that more unexpected.
It's all that more surprising.
▲
Export Selection