All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 28, 2023 - Dinesh D'Souza
48:53
CENSORING YOUR THOUGHTS?! Dinesh D’Souza Podcast Ep736
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Ladies and gentlemen, welcome back to the Dinesh D'Souza show.
Today is Thursday. It's December the 28th, and we have a fantastic show for you.
We're going to be talking to one of my favorite people, one of the boldest people out there, another investigative journalist.
It's Tracy Beans.
She's the editor in chief at UncoveredDC.com.
She is the breaker of stories.
She is the spawner of congressional investigations.
And she is a fearless warrior for what she thinks is right.
And she doesn't care what anyone else thinks.
We're gonna be talking about the Missouri versus Biden case, which if you are not familiar with, might be the most important free speech case, definitely of the decade, but possibly of all time in American history, because we have such an incredible reach and the fight back, the lawfare that's going on in the political right, it's critical.
If you didn't know about this case, stay tuned.
You're going to at least get a primer and we're going to tell you where to find more.
Stay tuned for all of that with Tracy Beans in just one moment.
This is the Dinesh D'Souza Show.
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.
Folks, thanks for joining us today for the Dinesh D'Souza Show.
My name is Kyle Serafin. I'm the host of my own show called The Kyle Serafin Show.
It's on Rumble at rumble.com slash kileserafin.
You can always go check out some of the stuff that we're doing there.
Today, we're going to be talking to Tracy Beans.
As I just alluded to, she is an investigative journalist, and this is kind of telling a story this whole week.
We spoke to Matt Taibbi, who broke open the Twitter files.
The Twitter files were one good microcosm.
It's a single look at a single company and the way that they were dealing with government censorship.
It wasn't something they wanted to do.
That seems very problematic.
I highly encourage you to listen to what Matt Taibbi had to say, and you can look at his Twitter feed to find out some of the coverage they were doing, including some of the stuff he's doing over at his website, which is called Racket.
Now, the broader context of this is that several state governments decided to get involved about the same time.
In late 2020, maybe early of 2021, we'll get it from Tracy in just a second, but the attorneys general of Louisiana and Missouri got together and began filing lawsuits.
At the time, that was Eric Schmidt.
He was the attorney general.
Now he is a senator, which is even better.
And what they did is they looked at and they said, what is this government doing to conservatives?
And more broadly, what does it mean for free speech in this country?
If we don't have the freedom of speech, we are going to be very limited in the way that we can have public discourse.
And when you can't talk, the next thing is very ugly.
There's a reason why things like civil war keep trending on social media, because if you can't have speech and debate and have unfriendly speech, in fact, you probably have a constitutional right in this country to be an a-hole.
It turns out it's one of those things you're supposed to be able to say ugly things, and And then we debunk it with good, better, more intelligent, and better ideas.
Thank you. So if we're going to have the federal government weigh in, lose its position where it's supposed to remain agnostic on things like religion, on things like assemblies, whether you can assemble with certain people or not, whether you can say certain things either in a social media context or whether you can say them online, whether you can say them to each other.
When people are worried about what they say on the phone when they pick up and call their friends, that is not the fundamental system that America is built on.
It's actually antithetical to America.
It's not free. It's the police state, which is why Dinesh made this movie and why we keep hammering this drum.
It doesn't matter whether you're talking to people like me who have worked as part of that apparatus or people who have been victims of that apparatus.
The police state continues to let us know that it's not a police state by acting like a police state.
It's the old joke about conspiracy theories.
They used to say, how do you know that it's not a real, it's not a real true thing, that the conspiracy theory is not real?
And usually the way is, is because you're allowed to talk about it.
The government right now in 2020, 2021, 22, and now this year have been proving to us that the conspiracy theories are real by not letting us talk about it.
They're letting us know that the thing we're saying is too dangerous for other people to hear.
And that should worry you as an American.
It doesn't matter if you're on the political left or the political right.
We brought on Matt Taibbi.
He's very firmly on the political left.
He doesn't have a strong religious faith.
He doesn't have a belief in many conservative principles.
But what he does believe in is the bedrock idea that we should at least be able to debate them.
We should be able to have that free speech.
Missouri v. Biden is cracking that open.
It's showing the underbelly of what the government was involved in as it put a heavy hand on the scale, and maybe not even a hand, but the whole forearm to weigh down on the speech and the algorithmic censorship that was happening, making people believe that reality was not reality.
And like many of you, I also saw this in 2020 and 21, and it looked like they were actually moving the goalposts for us in real time.
It's the glitch that we saw in a movie like The Matrix.
My friends hate it when I make this reference, but that sort of deja vu moment where you go, that's when they changed the code.
The cat walks by and the cat walks by again.
This was happening for those of us who were watching We saw them move the goalpost and we knew it was wrong right then.
For those people who have not been paying attention and have not been awake about this, they're getting a chance to look into it in court proceedings.
There's incredible amounts of discovery and the implications of this case are very broad.
So stick around to listen to what Tracy Beans is going to share with us.
She's outstanding at what she does, and she's been following this thing even before she knew it was going to be big, even under the cloud of censorship herself.
And I think we're going to find out she was actually mentioned in this case.
So she's a great opportunity to kind of probe into it.
For those of you who are just getting your first primer, Missouri v.
Biden, like I said, the biggest free speech case, least of this decade.
We're going to be talking to Tracy Beans in just a second after the break.
Today's podcast is brought to you by MyPillow.
You know Mike Lindell. You can go to MyPillow.com slash Dinesh.
Check out all of the outstanding deals he's got on all of his sleep products and also some of the stuff that you may not associate with MyPillow.
How about the MyPillow slippers?
One of my buddies is actually doing construction in those things.
He said they clean up well.
You can cover them in drywall and they still clean up.
They're comfortable. They have arch support.
What's better than doing hard work in a soft shoe?
I don't know. Probably nothing.
Probably better get some good sleep on the Giza Dream Sheets, an outstanding cotton that's durable.
It's soft. It's warm.
It's the winter right now. You might want some warm sheets.
I'm more of like a percale sheet kind of guy.
I like it crisp. I like it cold.
That comes from my military background.
Folks, go to mypillow.com slash Dinesh.
You'll catch all the same deals as any of the other influencers.
Are other people selling MyPillow?
Yeah, they are, they are.
But you can get them and support this program by going to mypillow.com slash Dinesh.
They've got a 60-day money-back guarantee on the sheets.
That's pretty easy to actually send them back.
I've actually had to send something back to MyPillow.
They'll receive them.
They'll do it with a smile.
Fantastic.
And they've got a 10-year warranty on it, which is actually shocking.
Think about how many nights are in 10 years.
It makes my head hurt.
It's over 3000.
That's all I can do.
Okay.
You get 50% off the Giza dream sheets right now.
They're almost giving them away at under $30 for the smallest set.
Different sizes. Go pick the one that you want.
Do promo code Dinesh at MyPillow.com or you can call 1-800-876-0227.
Again, that number is 800-876-0227.
You'll get a live person on the other end who's willing to hook you up and set your order up.
Promo code Dinesh. Support the MyPillow family and Mike Lindell's fantastic efforts over there to get you to sleep.
Folks, we are right around the corner from New Year's Eve.
That means it is time for a New Year's resolution.
How about the resolution of great health?
Dinesh and Debbie are on that.
They are worried about whether they're not going to get enough fruits and veggies and fiber and so on.
Luckily, they are using balance of nature.
What a better way to get your fruits and vegetables and not worry about it, plus fiber, than balance of nature.
What is it? It is a supplement.
It's made from fresh, whole produce.
They powder them after an advanced vacuum cold process which stabilizes the maximum nutrient content.
The balance includes fiber and proprietary spices for an overall health and digestive health.
So, you can start your journey right now with Better Health by going to balanceofnature.com.
You'll get 35% off, or you can call their 800 number.
This one's kind of fun to say.
800-246-8751.
Let's do it one more time.
800-246-8751.
I actually do like saying that.
Balanceofnature.com, getting 35% off.
That's the preferred first-time customer order using discount code AMERICA. That code is America.
You should know how to spell that one.
Everybody can do it. Go to balanceofnature.com or call 800-246-8751 for that 35% off offer.
Discount code America.
Folks, you are in for a treat today.
We are going to be talking to one of my friends, one of the outstanding independent journalists we've been talking about that are fighting against weaponized government.
And this is Tracy Beans of UncoverDC.com.
Hey, Tracy. Hey, what's going on?
Do people really call you Beans?
They do. My husband called me Beans.
Beans is on my Christmas stocking.
Where does the name come from? Well, remember back in the 90s when they started saying cool beans like it was actually cool?
Don't tell me that. Dead serious.
I hated it. My boyfriend started calling me Beans and it stuck.
So that's where it comes from.
I love it. Tell people a little bit how you got into journalism, how you started doing investigative journalism.
Then we're going to cover down on Missouri v.
Biden because I think that's going to be so interesting to most people who are not paying attention.
Yeah, that's a big one. Journalism.
Wow. Well, it really took off.
I kind of was writing my entire growing up.
I wrote for the school paper.
I wrote for Newsday on Long Island, if anyone knows what that is.
Business magazines and stuff like that.
But then I got into politics and...
People didn't know anything, really.
People were kind of just opening their eyes to what was going on.
And when it really kind of became the thing I decided to do was when WikiLeaks dropped the Podesta emails, because nobody understood why it was important that Citigroup was choosing Barack Obama's cabinet.
Like, why did that matter?
Who are these people? What are their connections?
And stuff like that. So I started writing and teaching people all that stuff, and it kind of just took on a life of its own and Then, you know, people, it was like, let's place some op-eds for you, you know, places.
And then it was, well, we're really not wanting to talk about that right now because, you know, it's a little controversial.
And I'm like, well, forget this.
I'm just going to start my own thing because who wants that?
So I did. And here we are a few years later.
So when did Uncover DC get launched?
You're gonna, I don't even, it was five years, about five years ago.
Perfect, perfect. Okay, about five years ago and you've been doing that.
You're the editor-in-chief over there.
You guys have some great reporting and one of the better stories, I think, about the whistleblowers that came out with me.
So that was actually how I got turned on to your stories.
I started watching you thread about Missouri v.
Biden. Will you set up what this case, where it came from, and then we'll get into what it's about.
Yeah, for sure. I saw this hit.
It's the states of Missouri and Louisiana who decided they were going to sue the federal government about coercing social media companies to censor American speech.
So it's different than most.
It's not an individual suing a social media company for being banned.
It's the actual government suing the government for censoring Yeah.
Yeah. Yeah.
Yeah. We talked at the beginning this week, I talked to Matt Taibbi.
I think that was one of the first scenes that people were starting to see kind of behind the curtain.
And as I understand it, I think this actually predated that.
The governments of Missouri and Louisiana actually sort of had an instinct that this was going on.
And so they're kind of both pulling at different ends of the same curtain, maybe, and looking behind it in different ways.
Is that accurate? Pretty much.
I mean, we got a lot of discovery out of the case that tracked with what Matt Taibbi uncovered in the Twitter files after Elon Musk let him look under the hood.
But we were getting stuff.
I mean, we were getting some really insane stuff, especially coming out of the White House Digital Communications and Strategy Office run by Rob Flaherty, who conveniently is now no longer in the White House, but is now on Joe Biden's campaign staff.
They like to do that.
As a matter of fact...
What does that shuffle look? Why do you think that is?
Well, because it's hard, you know, when you're suing an office.
So they're not suing the individual who occupied that position.
They're suing the office itself.
And they pulled the same kind of thing with Jen Psaki.
And it's interesting because Dinesh actually covered this on his show, the article that I wrote about it.
I don't know, about six to eight months ago.
Because what they do is they'll shuffle somebody out.
They'll replace them with someone.
And then when it comes time for depositions, that person can say, well, I wasn't here.
I don't know. And it just kind of gives them that other level of being able to get out of producing what they know exists.
I don't know.
To do as he says, or else we wouldn't want the White House to be angry with you.
You wouldn't want something to happen to your family.
It's almost as that level of vitriol coming from the White House surrounding numerous topics.
Take down that vaccine stuff.
Take down that COVID stuff.
Take down that joke about Jill Biden that's floating around on your platform.
I mean, everything. Everything.
So this is what they've been doing.
So there's two things you just kind of exposed.
One of them, I think, is the you're a New Yorker, you know, the shell game, right?
So the shell game is you're keeping the P moving and there's always a shell over the top of it.
So they're moving the people out of the office.
Plausible deniability would be the government word for it.
And then on top of that, they're also doing a very nasty kind of carrot and stick thing.
Like you want to have access to the White House, don't you?
It'd be a real shame if we didn't want you to be coming here.
It'd be a real shame if we started pushing a bunch of regulations on you, which was something we saw from the Twitter files.
That was like Senator, who was it?
Was it Mark Warner that was proposing some real heavy and obviously expensive regulations?
So you've got the carrot in the stick game and they're also kind of moving people out to try to keep them out of the lawsuit.
Is the government successful in keeping these people out of the lawsuits?
Yeah, they are. I mean, all they have to do is fire them.
They fired almost everybody that's been deposed so far.
You know, the gentleman underneath Vivek Murthy, all kinds of folks are gone that were there before.
And the interesting thing is this.
So this is how it went, just to give everybody a timeline real quick.
They filed the lawsuit.
They asked for a temporary injunction that would bar the government from doing any of this stuff and speaking with social media companies about any of that stuff.
So no longer could you, you know, ring up the CEO of Twitter and say, you need to take this post down, otherwise we might have to look at Section 230.
Or you need to remove these accounts, otherwise we might have some people come to your offices and sit with you about antitrust.
And that's the kind of stuff that they were doing.
So the judge in the case says, okay, well, we first need to prove somehow that this is actually going on.
So they asked for some limited discovery.
So they were limited to this very small little group of people and offices that they wanted to grab discovery from to prove out that they needed the temporary injunction at all.
So all of the things that we're seeing released now come from that very limited subset of discovery in leading up to the temporary injunction.
So we're not even into the case.
What we are now, but we weren't even really into the case.
All of the things that happened so far are all the government wincing in the sunlight over a temporary injunction which just bars them from doing things they shouldn't do anyway.
For, I don't know, a year or two until the case plays out.
So they're basically arguing that they need to be able to censor people.
And that the temporary injunction that very specifically bars them from coercing social media platforms to censor is an obstruction of their right to free speech.
Interesting.
The government thinks that they have a right to free speech is what they're arguing.
And they do. They do to an extent.
However, this injunction doesn't do anything to stop them from going on social platforms and saying, I've remected his horse pace.
It doesn't stop them from doing that.
It just stops them from...
Coercing social media companies to stop other people, individuals, from sharing their views.
As a matter of fact, interestingly, in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals oral arguments, one of the attorneys for the solicitor general from Louisiana and also Missouri, their conversation about the lawsuit was banned from YouTube because of what they're talking about.
And the Fifth Circuit judges really couldn't believe that.
They were stunned by it.
And so all along the way, the government's lost.
I mean, at every level, they've just lost and lost and lost.
And then it went in front of the Supreme Court, the injunction that was granted by the district court judge in Louisiana, and then by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, now is at the Supreme Court.
And in a very rare happening, there was a dissent to this.
They agreed they're going to take the case and hear it, but they put an indefinite stay on this injunction, which means through election season, the government can tell social media companies to do whatever they want because this thing is stayed until the Supreme Court takes it back up again.
And Alito and Gorsuch and Thomas wrote a dissent to that decision, saying, you're basically saying that what everybody worries about is true.
You're giving them carte blanche to interfere in Americans' free speech rights throughout an election season, most consequentially, but in general at all.
And so that was kind of interesting to see as well.
So Dinesh got into a film that was called Police State, a whole sort of investigation into this kind of thing.
And what's amazing to me about this is the people on the political left are arguing there is no police state.
Obviously, you and I think differently.
I think it's very interesting that in 2023, with all the visibility of social media, with all of the speed of news and the fact that you really can't suppress stories nearly as much as you'd like to if you're the federal government, They are trying to prove that there is no police state and there's no censorship apparatus through censorship and police state tactics.
Like, could you make this up in a timeline?
It's really bad.
And, you know, listen, you know, Matt's not a conservative, OK? You know that.
As stated on the show here just a couple days ago.
Yes. And neither is Michael Schellenberg a conservative, right?
I mean, they're not. They're classical, I would say classical liberal, very, very big proponents of free speech, which everyone should be.
And what I'm finding interesting is that You notice this all the time.
Our ideas in the marketplace float to the top all the time.
And they absolutely cannot have a populace informed about all of the things that we've all been talking about for years now.
Otherwise, they lose their stranglehold and they don't have a police state anymore.
So that's what the root of all of this is.
It's a very foundational concept in our country that should not be trampled all over.
The First Amendment. I mean, it's the First Amendment.
It seems so self-evident at that point.
What's fun is that talking to Matt, he was saying the entire premise of this is creating an artificial reality that is fed through media, that's fed through social media and so on, but it's by throttling things on the back end.
And the only way that works is people have to have a fundamental belief that the algorithms are fair.
And that's a mistaken belief.
And that's sort of at the root of what Missouri v.
Biden and what the Twitter files kind of started showing both of them from the same time.
Can you talk about the number of companies that are involved in this because that may actually shock people?
Yeah, I mean, and you know, the other thing, there's a couple different things with what you just said.
I'll go quickly if I can.
Please. Number one, talking about algorithms.
So one of the things that happened that was kind of just a real big karmic slap was that, you know, Biden and Flaherty were demanding that Instagram tighten up their algorithm to find vaccine-hesitant content and get rid of it, right?
So they forced Instagram meta to make a new algorithm to remove this content.
And all of a sudden the White House account, the Biden account starts decreasing in engagement.
It's not picking up followers.
They can't figure out why.
So they're yelling at Facebook executives, what's going on meta executives?
I keep saying Facebook.
What's going on here?
Why is this happening to the White House account?
Well, it turns out they wrote their algorithms so well that it was picking up pro vaccine content as well and censoring that.
So Biden was a victim of the very censorship he wanted everybody else to have to deal with.
And they lost their minds.
I mean, expletive after expletive in these emails back and forth with meta executives about why the official White House and Biden account were having these problems.
Number two, every social media company is involved.
Now, the big ones in this lawsuit are, you know, Instagram, Facebook, YouTube, Google.
Twitter, formerly Twitter.
But the most interesting thing to me is the only real willing participant in this who didn't need to be cajoled and threatened was Google.
Not surprised that Google is so pro...
I don't know, corruption pro-communism, but surprised at how much Facebook and Twitter even at the time really fought back against this.
Facebook had a whole argument about why censoring vaccine-related content and people's stories about what happened to them when they took the vaccine would actually turn into like a Streisand effect and have the opposite effect as what they intended it to.
They've actually seen how human beings work.
Yeah, like they had some idea like, oh, our therapists and our people are telling us that we probably really shouldn't do this.
It was basically like if someone screams in a forest, can you hear them if nobody's around?
Or if a tree falls, can you hear it?
Because they were censoring people.
But they weren't telling them like you just mentioned.
The algorithm wasn't saying, oh, sorry, you can't say this.
It was just making it so no one could see it.
So imagine, and they were taking down groups of people talking about these things too.
So imagine you're injured, trying to get some answers from somebody, some sympathy, something, and you're screaming into a void for months at a time because Facebook was told by the White House that they don't want anybody to see anything negative you might have to say about the mRNA shots.
It's terrible. Absolutely terrible.
We're going to dig into more of this right after the break.
We're going to take a quick commercial break, and then we'll come right back with Tracy Beans, who's the editor-in-chief at UncoveredDC.com.
The program today is also brought to you by Relief Factor.
I've got a couple of buddies that like Relief Factor.
Not everybody sits every day and feels pain-free the way I do.
People say, hey, what's your secret? My secret is clean living and a pure heart.
It's too late for you on that one.
If you've got pain, you've got to solve your problem another way.
How about Relief Factor?
It's a supplement that is going to use non-drug solutions to get rid of the pain in your life.
What kind of pains?
Neck pains, back pains, aches, neck pains?
Really? Is that what you guys are doing?
Stop looking down at your desk and start looking at relieffactor.com.
We'll go ahead and tell you a little bit.
It's a daily supplement.
It helps your body fight against pain.
100% drug-free.
It's developed by doctors who were saying, hey, drugs are not the best way to do this.
Can we do something other than mask the pain?
Can we attack the source?
How about attacking the inflammation?
It's full of a unique formula, natural ingredients like turmeric and omega-3.
They're just trying to help you get through your day like I said, it's too late for you for the clean living and a pure heart.
You can start going forward now, but why not try ReliefFactor to try to support your body's natural responses against inflammation.
You can get started with a three-week quick start set.
It's $19.95, less than $20, comes with a money-back guarantee.
Feel better, or they'll give you your money back.
Why not give it a try?
It's relieffactor.com.
Again, relieffactor.com.
Yes, there's two Fs in the middle there.
Or you can call the 800 number.
It's 800, the number four, relief.
800, four, relief.
And when you feel the difference, you know it works.
Relief factor. Folks, are you diversified in your savings?
Do you have physical precious metals stockpiled in your home safe?
You can do that with Birch Gold Group.
You just text the word Dinesh to 98 98 98 and you'll get a free information guide.
Whether you're interested in buying physical precious metals like gold and silver, putting it in your home safe, or whether you're interested in converting an IRA or a 401k into a tax-sheltered gold account, you can do so with no money out of pocket.
All you need to do is text 989898.
Text the word Dinesh to 989898.
Get your free information pack and figure out what they got going on for you.
What's the best move for you?
Who knows? It's coming into a really wild year.
2024 is looking to be volatile, unstable, and the one thing we know that is not those things.
Our physical precious metals.
You can't just stack brass and lead, folks.
You might have to get yourself diversified into gold and silver, and you should check out Birch Gold Group in order to do that.
Text 989898 with the word Dinesh and see what they've got in store for you.
All right, and we're back with Tracy Beans with a Z, right?
It's a Z at the end? Yep.
Beans. And she's also the host of, or maybe the co-host, I guess is probably most appropriate, of the Dark to Light podcast, Frank and Beans.
And I want to keep digging into this Missouri v.
Biden thing because we're talking about how the government is essentially trying to prove that they're not doing anything wrong by doing the thing that they're told not to do.
Which is amazing. Yep.
The implications of it, let's talk about the implications of the case at large.
What's at stake here with this case?
Oh, I mean, the protection of our First Amendment rights, I think it's going to open up the ability for individuals to sue as well, sue the government.
Like me, for example.
Tell people your specific case, because I think that's also really relevant.
Well, yeah, I mean, I was mentioned by name in this whole thing with the EIP and Stanford Internet Observatory for coverage I was doing about a lawsuit in Pennsylvania about, you know, election integrity.
And then later for stuff that I spoke about regarding COVID-19.
So technically, I mean, they removed me from social media platforms.
They removed me from Patreon.
They removed me from PayPal.
They basically demonetized me and censored me to try and put me out of business for talking about things that I knew at the time were true, but now we know are absolutely 100% true.
I mean, if the government is found to have coerced and threatened social media companies to take these actions, my gripe isn't with necessarily the social media company.
It's with the government of the United States who has zero business stepping in between my relationship with that company to make it do anything.
Let alone censor me from speaking in the town square.
So it's going to open up that.
And it's also finally going to hopefully open Americans' eyes to what's been going on.
Because if you're not affected by this, it doesn't really matter to you.
But if you're trying to find information, which is where the majority of Americans are, whether you're a boomer on Facebook or you're on Instagram or you're on TikTok or wherever you're at, You're finding information there.
And if some of that information or 90% of it's censored, especially about things of national and international importance, then that's a problem.
So we can control what happens in our bubble here if we have a good justice system that actually does justice, which this slate of people is doing.
But if other countries around the world, you're seeing it with Rumble now.
Rumble's having a hard time with...
With different countries and their draconian censorship rules that they're trying to put into place.
And, you know, look, the government isn't stopping with this.
They tried the disinformation governance board, which was the thing that they were trying to get kind of snuck in and funded for like a global disinformation czar that would sit over and tell everybody what was real and what wasn't and what was true and what wasn't.
And so people know what that reference is.
This is the woman, Nina Jankiewicz, who was the Mary Poppins of disinformation, a totally nauseating creature.
But if you're thinking like, where do I know that name from?
That's the viral videos you guys saw of this kooky lady who's under 40 and wants to tell you what's true and what's false and also with the hammer of the government behind it.
So that was that little piece.
Even if it is false, like, let's say I'm saying something that's completely false.
It doesn't matter.
Like, I have a right to say false things just as much as I have a right to say true things, but it just so happens that all the things that they are saying are false were actually true and vice versa.
And the thing that I know really drove you nuts when you saw it, Kyle, because you've pounded on this quite a bit, was CISA literally declaring that your thoughts...
We're cognitive infrastructure under their purview to then look after as part of the infrastructure of the United States government.
This is the broadening of the mandate that these organizations and bureaucracies have taken upon themselves as everybody else goes to yoga and kind of tries to put groceries on their table and fill up their car with gas.
This is what's going on.
So... Yeah, CISA, which was 2018 instituted under the Trump administration, probably one of the biggest policy disasters when it comes down to it.
And not necessarily by design, but that's just the way the government works.
It's called mission creep. If you're in the military, if you're in law enforcement, you know that.
You're just looking for budget. You're looking for reasons to exist.
And they said, how are we going to police thoughts, which they can't do, right?
They can't get into your head. But we can control what goes towards your ears and your eyeballs.
And so they said that your mind was part of their infrastructure.
That's cognitive infrastructure, as you and I read it, right?
Yep. And so by doing that, how do we control what's in the cognitive infrastructure and protect it?
We're going to do it by controlling what you read and what you hear, which is truly incredible.
And I think Matt Taibbi said it the other day.
He said the Soviets would be groveling to have this kind of technology and power.
What do you think? I agree.
I mean, they don't need it.
They've got our government instead.
I think their interests may be misaligned at this point, though.
I think that the Russians would much rather we know what's going on than we don't because we don't typically stand for tyranny.
They want us kind of fighting with each other.
However, this cognitive infrastructure thing that came out of this lawsuit, I couldn't even believe it when I read it.
It's... It's crazy.
I mean, that is insane. It's wild government speak for the scariest thing that you could ever have, I think.
It's Orwell.
It's thought policing in a real way.
They actually declared it.
And just sort of like the testicular fortitude you'd have to have to write that in a document and say, yeah, we're going to try to slide this one forward.
And it went forward. It did.
It did. And, you know, the greatest thing just on what Taibbi has done and what Elon's done by opening things up, and what the interesting, like, juncture of this lawsuit is this.
The social media companies don't want it to be them who have been doing all the censoring, and they're in an interesting place with 230 and this whole entire argument, Section 230, saying, you know, whether or not they hear publishers or, you know, just platforms.
Well, the social media companies will be subpoenaed.
They're gonna be producing discovery.
The government is gonna have to produce discovery, and that discovery is gonna have to match up.
So the government's not gonna be able to hold back.
They're not gonna have any clue what social media companies are providing, and I'm going to go on the record now and say I'm almost guaranteeing you they are gonna open it up wide.
As a matter of fact, because they did open it up wide, we even know who the gentleman Elvis Chan from the FBI is.
That came from Facebook.
The government refused to give up that information.
Lawyers are going back and forth and back and forth.
Facebook told the attorneys general, I mean the attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana who that agent was that was trying to censor the Hunter Biden laptop.
That was Facebook that gave up that name.
So this is the this is the poll we're gonna have.
It's gonna be really interesting. Because we have different interests.
The government's always interested in protecting the government's interests and keeping things quiet.
That's sort of the nature of the intelligence apparatus.
That's my experience, at least. And I think most people who have ever filed a FOIA have the same.
But what's interesting is I think we have competing interests of social media companies.
And you tell me if I'm wrong here. But what happens is you've got you talked about a battered wife.
You talk about the victim getting a chance to basically come clean.
Yeah, we were doing that.
I'm sorry. Yeah, they have no out.
You're 100% right.
And that's why this dynamic is so interesting.
And it's a part of this case that people don't normally focus on, because it's the legal mumbo jumbo and the strategy and all that.
There's nowhere for them to go.
I mean, there's nowhere for them to go.
Like, for example, if the government decides they're going to hold back a bunch of stuff that CISA was saying to Facebook, but Facebook provides it.
The government's in contempt of the order, of the subpoena.
It's a no-win.
It's a no-win. So it's going to be super interesting to see how this all plays out.
And I'm going to sleep outside of the courthouse in a tent if I have to for the entire time that this case is ongoing.
The judge in this case is a...
Is a superstar.
I mean, a superstar judge.
And by that, you're saying just doing things the way that things are supposed to be done, as opposed to the expectation we see of failure over and over.
Yes, which is pretty sad that that's where we're at.
I say that all the time.
But he's also got a bunch of other cases that are tangential to this one.
For example, the NGOs that the government brought in and paid to do the things that even they thought were too bad to do, there's a plaintiff from this lawsuit also suing those NGOs in the same court.
So he's got a whole censorship web wrapped around him in that court in Louisiana.
And it just so happens that one of the plaintiffs who was a victim of all of this lives there, and she's the one who's bringing these lawsuits, and they're in that district, so...
Sometimes it's the right plaintiff in the right place with the right judge and you just get some decent decisions that just should be tracking with most what Americans expect our fundamental fairness will kind of allow.
I want to hang in one more thing and then we'll kind of do like a broader look here.
The one more thing you said was there were companies that you would expect to go along with it and companies that you didn't expect.
Did you say that Google was like sort of okay with the government coming in in a much bigger way?
They were helping. Okay, but the others were resistant and that's worth noting.
Yes. Yes.
So the Twitters, the meta and the Twitters and so on, they didn't want anything to do with this because it's one, it's a big burden.
And two, it's probably a big liability if they're being smart about it, which I'm sure they are.
It is. And they know their customer base.
And people really get angry with me when I say these things because they think I'm defending the social media companies.
Are there people in these social media companies who would gladly censor conservative thought and the truth?
100% yes. That's not what I'm saying.
However, from the top, there was significant pushback.
And you can read it with your own two eyes.
I have everything in my pinned tweet post that you can read all of it's there.
Everything's there.
So it was surprising.
It makes the most sense because they didn't become multi-billion dollar corporations by being stupid or not understanding what the ground rules are, right?
I mean, they're operating in a space that theoretically is supposed to be relatively free speech.
And the idea that they would be like, hey, we don't really want to wade into it.
Like we might put our toe in the water, but jumping in whole hog is how you get eaten.
And it's also interesting that Google, whose motto is used to be do no evil, and then got in bed with the Chinese and then decided, yeah, evil is actually pretty profitable.
That's kind of why the Bond villains do it, so maybe we'll do it too.
They were the only ones that really jumped in whole hog, and they really are kind of the death star of this stuff.
They are. And they're saying, like the government is saying to Meta, why don't you be more like Google?
Look what they're doing. I'm dead serious.
Of course. Unless people miss this, because not everybody deals with this all day like you and I do.
But Google and YouTube, that's the same entity.
It's all underneath Alphabet.
That's the big, like the overreaching thing.
And so these guys were 100% on board with the government.
Telling people what's going on, trying to control thought, which is kind of what we think they'd like to do.
And interestingly enough, some of these other platforms where people have been censored, they weren't into it, but they did get coerced into it, and they're going to be the real danger, I think, to the federal government in this lawsuit.
Agreed. That was a good summation, 100%.
Fantastic. I appreciate you kind of bringing that.
Okay, let's talk about some of the other stuff, some of the big stories.
You guys had at least one or two that got you some pretty good heat, and we heard some feelings, which I got to cooperate with you on.
You want to talk about that and what you've been doing over at Uncovered DC this year?
For sure. I'm glad every time you come to me, you're like, hey, look at this.
You wanted to write the story about the Latin mass and traditional Catholics.
And I was like, that's absolutely fine.
You might as well definitely write that because nobody knows better than you, right?
That one, to see that in hearings and stuff, me, little old me.
With little Ola uncovered DC was really cool.
It was good to make change like that and actually, you know, impacts and stuff.
It's in the FOIA discovery, too, when my friends at Catholic Vote and Judicial Watch have been going after and hitting the FBI for it.
They're like sending the piece around and it's like my byline and it's got your banner and I'm just like, yeah, like, screw you guys. We're hitting you where it hurts because we're telling things that are true. For what it's worth, I just want to plug Tracy's sort of courage in this space because I went to other places that may be bigger outlets, not necessarily first, but just because like reach is important when you're trying to break a story.
And they were all like, well, we can't just deputize you as a journalist. And I'm like, what are you? Are you smoking something?
Why?
Yes, you can. Number one, this is not an opinion piece.
I'm going to give you the facts.
And they're like, well, give us the facts and maybe we'll write something about it and quote you.
And I went, no, no, no. Let me do analysis.
You don't even know what you're talking about. Tracy had the stones to go out there and put it out there right in front.
She knew what I was bringing. It was true.
So we broke the story about the FBI going into churches, particularly in Richmond, which has gotten congressional investigation spawned.
What a fun game when you're the one doing that.
That's not the only thing you guys broke.
What other things have you been breaking over there?
Oh, the emails. We did the emails.
Jen's emails. Jenny Moore's emails.
Yeah, which it's going to come back, by the way.
Trump's investigators are very interested in what Jenny Moore was up to.
Well, Jenny Moore was doing some really interesting stuff with J6. And I think the one in there that really piqued my interest the most was her accusing two, quote, defendants of killing Officer Sicknick.
And they knew that he didn't die that way.
So that was one of the interesting things in those emails, which...
Coincidentally, we're removed from Scribd, and they're FOIA-able.
That wasn't something that we shouldn't have been published.
I mean, those were official FBI emails.
We took some pains to redact some kids and things like that.
And they were done on an unclassified email server.
This is not a national security risk.
This is just a lady writing, you know, essentially a white wine blog for moms to all the employees of the intelligence division where I used to work.
So that's fun. And...
Peter Strzok got very upset about that, too.
He didn't like those at all.
He was very angry, mentioned us by name, good old Peter Strzok.
What other ones? I mean, we've had a few.
Oh, the HR training manual for the FBI where they combined...
Yeah, whistleblowers and what was the other piece of it?
Whistleblowers and insider threats.
So some of those things, and those are all stories people can still find on UncoverDC.com, correct?
Oh, yes. Yes.
And if you can see me on X, you'll find them all there, too.
A bunch of stuff. I mean, somebody has to publish this stuff and not be scared to do it.
And, you know, a lot of it's getting easier for people to do it.
But I think that for a long time there, nobody had the cojones to actually be like, yeah, forget this noise.
People need to know this is happening.
And I just I just don't care.
The truth is the truth.
I mean, you're brave enough to bring it forward.
And I said, we need to keep you out in front all the time with a huge spotlight on you.
And I mean, you know, you've kind of taken on a life of your own now.
But I did my best in the beginning.
And it was very appreciated.
You've done great work on there, folks.
I still look at Uncover DC for great writing, and it's a good outlet for things that you won't necessarily see, but it does spawn congressional hearings, which should tell you just a little bit about it.
Tracy, where can people find you and that pinned tweet?
Where should they follow you? Yeah, it's at Tracy Beans on all the platforms.
It's the same name with the Z because AOL had somebody else with the S. That's exactly why I have a Z at the end.
And at UncoverDC.com.
And then UncoverDC has accounts too at UncoverDC.
Thanks for having me, Kyle.
This was fun. I enjoyed it.
I always like talking to you. And sometimes I just have to book you in order to talk to you because we're so busy.
Thanks for joining me today.
Thanks. My name is Mark Lichtenfeld, bestselling author of Get Rich with Dividends and chief income strategist at the Oxford Club, one of the world's largest and most prominent financial firms, where over 250,000 readers receive my insights each week.
I believe we're entering the greatest oil bull market since the 1970s.
That's why I'm so excited to share this special oil and gas investment with you today.
I've discovered an unusual way to potentially bank massive income from the oil and gas surge 100% outside the stock market.
Oil and gas royalties are a backdoor way to get paid over and over again, and you can get into a top royalty stream for just $25.
This is your chance to get the income you need to truly enjoy life, simply because you made the decision to give the Oxford Income Letter a risk-free try today.
But this opportunity won't last forever.
To learn more about Mark Lichtenfeld's unusual approach to generating monthly income from the oil markets, please visit oilpayday.com.
That's oilpayday.com.
Paid for by the Oxford Club.
And there you have it, folks.
Tracy Beans, one of the greats.
She really is a good person.
She's also very fun. She does an outstanding podcast called The Dark to Light Podcast.
If you want something that's going to be not too heavy in the morning, three days a week, Monday, Wednesday, Friday, go check her out.
All right, a couple little things that are going on in the world.
We just talked about a big lawsuit against the federal government, which is definitely the opposite way that we see the justice system mostly working.
Most of the time what we see is people getting crushed by the federal government.
This is an opportunity to peel that back.
And there's a couple of other worthwhile cases to talk about while we're on the topic of lawsuits.
One of them is one of many that are against President Trump's name being on the ballot.
You wanna know how scared they are of a Donald Trump presidency.
They are attempting to not even let you vote for him in a primary in multiple states, including swing states.
They were supposedly successful in Colorado.
If you watched my show, what you'll know is, is that the judges immediately stayed their own decision.
That's how much confidence they had and how it was gonna work.
They don't even believe what they wrote in their own opinion.
And Trump's name will be on the ballot in Colorado.
There was another case that just was decided in Michigan.
Same exact question. Can we remove Donald Trump from the ballot here, represented by a small left-wing law firm, a progressive activist group, supposedly representing the very concerned voters of Michigan?
And I'm sure they were going to vote for Donald Trump anyway, right?
They were all really scared of this. What happened was...
The state said, we don't really have purview on this.
This is actually not a thing that the Michigan Supreme Court should be ruling on at all.
So they've rejected the appeal to remove Donald Trump.
He will remain on the ballot there.
But in a broader sense, what we are seeing is that left-wing funded groups, small and large, Many of them funded by the Open Societies Foundation, which is George Soros' organization, which he's put the vast majority of his fortune in.
I think something like 65% of his fortune is wrapped up in this Open Societies Foundation.
That money is funding lawsuits, particularly by this group called CRU. It's the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.
If you follow them on Twitter, they're CRU, CRU, highly clever.
And these guys are trying, and gals, are trying to remove Trump from the ballot in New York and some other places.
They're not going to be successful, but the last time that somebody tried to remove a president from the ballot was in 1860.
And that was Abraham Lincoln.
That worked out really well for the people who were doing it.
It's an interesting time.
Like I said, 2024 is going to be absolutely lit.
There's going to be no shortage of political commentary in either space, the left or the right.
It doesn't matter what you want to hear.
You can go out and find it, and it's going to get very wild.
There's a reason why, like I said, things like civil war keep trending.
It's because there's a lot of similarities with the factionalization, the tribalization, and there's a lot of us that are politically homeless.
Matt Taibbi came on and talked to you about it.
Tracy Beans, I think, is looking at people.
They're looking at so many different imperfect options.
And all we know is that the system is being stacked against the regular person who just wants to communicate with their neighbor and wants to be able to say, you know, what's true?
What's false? Can I get both sides of the coin, please, and just decide for myself?
Can you not do your thinking for me?
Can I just be an American?
And I think most of us are probably in that camp.
Lastly, I want to add another little piece of good news on the lawfare front.
There's a gentleman by the name of Brandon Strzok, spelled S-T-R-A-K-A. And Brandon Strzok is a founder of the walkaway movement.
He's a former Democrat.
He's a gay man who said, I am not a Democrat.
It just doesn't represent me.
And I'm not going to be voting on a party line as a block simply because of my identity as a human being.
I'm going to think for myself and make my own good decisions.
Now, that made him a real danger.
He was actually at January 6th.
He served time for that. He had to plead guilty to certain things.
And one of the things that was the result of his guilty plea was that a bunch of Capitol Police officers came after him and attempted to have him pay civil penalties under the KKK Act.
If you can imagine such a thing for deprivation of his civil liberties, of their civil liberties.
What's very interesting is that case was just won by Brandon.
He beat all these Capitol Police officers in this thing.
Of course, the lawsuit was filed by this group called the Lawyers Committee, very innocuously named, funded by none other than George Soros.
So that's also fun. They did it pro bono, as you can imagine, and it represented a couple of black and brown police officers from the Capitol Police.
They lost because on its face the lawsuit was ridiculous.
They were claiming that Brandon Strzok was involved in abusing them physically with fire extinguishers and bear spray and pepper spray and other types of violence and that these people suffered serious injuries.
The fun thing is in Discovery, just like we were talking about with Tracy, the Discovery showed that these Capitol Police officers were either at their home in another state and not at the Capitol at all when Brandon was there, or they were locked in sealed rooms and therefore not exposed to pepper spray.
They just watched it on the videos and apparently that was enough to hurt their hearts so they could file lawsuits and then ask Brandon to settle with them for a six-figure amount each.
It's very interesting when the system actually works in its favor.
Unfortunately, we have to go through all this rigmarole, but I just keep telling people, this is a season of light.
It's not a season of darkness.
It's the season of light overcoming the darkness and there are winds that are happening if you go out there and look for it.
Unfortunately, the media makes a lot more money off scaring you and triggering your amygdala into being afraid and looking for all the darkness.
Look for the light out there, folks.
This is the fourth day of Christmas.
It's a time for joy and celebration and there are good things happening all around you.
You just got to open your eyes up. We do appreciate you joining us.
We've got one more conversation coming up with another independent journalist tomorrow by the name of Steve Baker.
I encourage you to join me for the Dinesh D'Souza show with Steve Baker.
We're going to be talking J6 and we're going to be talking about being a victim of the police state.
There's a whole narrative here. You're going to see it by the end.
We look forward to seeing you guys tomorrow.
Have a great day. Subscribe to the Dinesh D'Souza Podcast on Apple, Google, and Spotify.
▲
Export Selection