All Episodes
Feb. 20, 2024 - Dinesh D'Souza
54:02
UNDER ATTACK Dinesh D’Souza Podcast Ep773
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Coming up, how do red pro-Trump districts end up with liberal or rhino representatives?
I'll use my involvement in the Brandon Gill campaign to try to clarify that issue.
Also dissect an AP report which falsely claims that through the vote admitted it has no evidence of voter fraud.
In the 2020 presidential election, Jeremy Stalnecker, he's CEO of the Mighty Oaks Foundation, he's going to join me to talk about the plight of veterans, the problem of suicide among our veterans.
Hey, if you're watching on Rumble, listening on Apple, Google, or Spotify, please subscribe to my channel.
This is the Dinesh D'Souza 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.
Today is the first day of early voting in Texas.
It is early voting, of course, in Texas 26, which is the congressional district in which Brandon Gill, my son-in-law, is running for Congress.
And all of this campaign hoopla is, I must say, somewhat new for me.
Now, I say this because even though I have worked on a campaign, the only campaign I worked on was, I feel a little funny saying this, the George H.W. Bush campaign.
And I worked on that campaign just for about two and a half months from November to January.
And this is 1988-89.
I'd actually been in the Reagan White House, and then the campaign requested I come over to the campaign, which I did.
But my tenure there was very brief, and of course, it was a long time ago.
So... The mechanics of campaigns so different than the world I've inhabited so far because my world has been the world of ideas, of issues, of policies, of think tanks, of books, and lectures.
So even though I'm exposed to the GOP, I speak at the GOP Lincoln dinner and Reagan dinner.
I, of course, make movies that deal with public policy.
Nevertheless, the The whole routine of a campaign, the mood of a campaign, the sitting in a war room and kind of looking at polls and looking at data and looking at different sort of voting groups and the different ways of getting votes.
Now, it's illuminating because sometimes when we're not exposed to this stuff, we think, well, the way to get votes is to have like a grassroots campaign and to tap into local activists.
And that's part of it.
Brandon's doing a lot of it.
He has a tremendous grassroots operation.
You get local precinct chairs involved and you get...
You get activists involved in all the different counties that make up your district.
But I think it is also obvious that this kind of grassroots operation is going to cover a fraction of a district.
So in Brandon's district, for example, you're going to have somewhere between 100, maybe 120,000 votes.
So think about it. Even if you're a guy who knows a lot of people, you work with a lot of activists, you go to events, how many people, how many hands can you shake?
How many doors can you knock?
How many people can you meet face to face?
You can meet some, but I don't think you can meet enough to win.
And so campaigns are driven by other things.
Mailers. Mailers. They're driven by radio ads.
They're driven by TV ads.
They're driven by robocalls.
They're driven by a kind of a juggernaut.
So think of it this way.
The grassroots is from the bottom percolating up.
And then let's call it TV ads is a kind of air raid.
You're bombing the district from the top, bombing it obviously with information, with the case for your candidate.
And so you see right away that the critical difference that money, We're good to go.
And I don't really have to tell you what the outcome of that is going to be.
I mean, you have the, I think, poignant and sad fact that you've got districts that are red that are being represented by representatives that are not so red, that are, I won't even call them rhinos.
They're just on the liberal end of the...
They are to the left of the district as a whole.
Let's put it that way. Some of them are moderate Republicans, but my point is moderate Republicans you would think would represent moderate districts.
So if you have a district that's largely moderate, then you would expect to see a moderate guy in that seat, but not when you have a red pro-Trump district.
So the reason it happens is because of what I just said.
Now, there's currently, as we speak, a massive, vicious attack on Brandon Gill.
It's coming from a super PAC, not a Texas super PAC. This is the Never Trump super PACs.
And I think what's happening is that the Never Trump super PACs had put their money, some of them on DeSantis, some of them on Nikki Haley.
And now they realize Nikki Haley is going absolutely nowhere.
So they're like, okay, let's shift our money and target MAGA candidates who are running for Congress and for the Senate.
Let's go after them.
And that's happening to people other than Brandon.
The reason Brandon's district is so important is it's a district without an incumbent.
It's an open seat. And once you become an incumbent, you're much more difficult to beat.
So they're very eager to, if they can't beat Brandon, which I don't believe they can, in fact, I know they can't, what they want to do is force him into a runoff.
because if he gets over 50% on March 5th, that's it. He's the Republican nominee and there's a 99% chance that he will be the congressman. Why? Because it's like a Republican plus 20 or plus 30 district. So the Democrat has virtually no chance to win.
Now, if you don't get over 50%, you go into a runoff. And what the super PACs are doing is let's attack Brandon.
What's remarkable is you think that they would have converged on another candidate.
Let's go with this guy or let's go with that guy.
But no, they're only attacking Brandon.
And they're saying that Brandon is for defund the police.
Now, think about this.
How preposterous could it be that somebody who I'm enthusiastic about, my son-in-law...
And Trump is enthusiastic about and Ted Cruz is enthusiastic about and Jim Jordan is enthusiastic about.
Troy Nils, Anna Paulina Luna.
I mean, Brandon's endorsements, I would take a whole page to list them all.
Are these people for defund the police?
It's just madness.
The basis for the PAC saying that is because Brandon was involved in police state.
And so the Never Trump Super PAC is trying to deceive people into thinking that making a movie like Police State, which is an attack on the intelligence agencies of government, the FBI, the CIA, and the Department of Homeland Security for political targeting.
At one point, Brandon tweeted out a hashtag, defund the FBI. So, but that is not the same.
In fact, that is the opposite of defund the police.
Brandon supports the police.
I support the police. The reason we attack the FBI is they are misusing their functions.
They are targeting people on a political basis.
So this is the lie being put out by this super PAC. Now, who is behind this?
Well, it's basically a bunch of DC guys and one prominent New York guy.
In fact, I happen to know who it is.
It's a hedge fund guy with a lot of money.
And I actually dealt with this guy many, many years ago.
In fact, in 2012, a decade ago, I went to see him to talk about getting my film, which was Obama's America, to swing voters.
And this guy, you know, just to give you a feeling for what these people are like, is just a massive weirdo.
He's a kind of a arrogant dwarf.
I mean, he's really short.
He comes to the meeting and he's like looking at the ground, doesn't even look at me.
We sit down and we begin the conversation and he looks up for a second and he says something like, okay, go!
As if like, make your pitch.
Which already made me feel a little bit degraded because, quite frankly, we had made a highly successful film.
We had paid back all our investors.
I was trying to do something to help the election.
And he was very involved with Romney at that time.
So I said to him, I said, hey, I wonder if you could help me get this message to swing voters.
And he goes, Dinesh, nobody in America watches movies anymore.
So think of the monumental ignorance of this statement.
I didn't even know what to say, and I obviously wanted to be polite, so I just blurted out, well, what do you think people watch if they don't watch movies, which I knew was, of course, absurd.
He goes, no, no, no, the only thing that people watch, Dinesh, are 90-second videos.
So here's a guy who thinks he's some kind of a cultural expert on the front line.
In fact, he lives in a bubble.
But all I said to him was, I go, well, actually, I make 90-second videos.
They're called trailers. They are aimed at directing people to go see the film.
And I tried to explain to this guy that, you know, I'm making a film about anti-colonialism, about Obama getting his ideas from his father in Kenya.
I said, there's no way to distill this message in 90 seconds.
But I realized I was talking to a brick wall.
Why? Because I was talking to someone who was so arrogant that they thought they knew better.
When we think about the globalist mentality, when we think about these people who think that they are the aristocrats and everybody else are the peasants, this is what we are dealing with.
Perhaps the funniest attack of the ad on Brandon is the idea that he's not a real Texan.
Now, isn't this ironic?
You've got New Yorkers trying to accuse Brandon of being a New Yorker and not a Texan because Brandon worked for himself on Wall Street for about five years.
So Brandon was born on a ranch in Eula, Texas, right outside of Abilene.
You've got photos that he's putting out on social media where Brandon on a tractor.
Brandon is there with the cows.
And so... He is a Texan through and through.
In fact, when he took my daughter Danielle on their first date, I asked Danielle later, I'm like, how'd it go?
And she goes, oh, Dad, I don't know.
I don't really think I like this guy because the whole dinner, all he talked about are cows.
So, there you go.
I mean, that's Texas.
And then shortly after Brandon and Danielle got married, the Gill family, his parents, invited us to Thanksgiving lunch at their house, at their ranch.
And they were telling us the program.
So, they go, we're going to have Thanksgiving lunch.
And afterwards, we have a special treat planned for you and Debbie.
And we're like, well, what is that?
And then Russell Gill, Mr.
Gill, Brandon's dad, goes, bull castration.
And I was like, what?
And then it was described to me, the whole thing, and later, of course, I witnessed it myself.
It is really something to watch.
I mean, first of all, these bulls are moved on this metallic thing, then they're flipped on their side, then their testicles are like lopped off.
I mean, this was a little traumatic for Debbie and me, not to mention for the bull, or bulls, I should say.
So I said to Mr.
Gill, I said, you know, Russell, I said, you know, I realize that there's kind of a season for everything, and was there some kind of ranch necessity that meant that the timing for doing this falls on Thanksgiving, and so it was not ideal, but you kind of have to do it anyway?
And he goes, oh no!
He goes, I was saving it for you guys!
So... So, now I know I am in Texas because after Thanksgiving lunch, I am going to be presiding and witnessing, and I was invited to take part, but politely declined, in bull castration.
So, look, Brandon's a Texan through and through.
He's 29 years old.
By my calculation, he's lived 20 of those years in Texas.
He moved back here after his stint in New York.
But it just gives an idea of how preposterous these attacks are.
But guess what?
There's a million and a half dollars behind them, and so you need a lot of money on the other side to fight back.
And the good news for Brandon is he has the means to fight back.
The Club for Growth, which is a conservative free market PAC, Jim Jordan is part of the Club for Growth, so are many others, is backing Brandon.
And so you can fight fire with fire, or you can say that, you know, if they have air raids, we have air raids to combat the air raids.
So Brandon is going to be able to take this on.
But this is what you deal with when you run for Congress.
You think you're doing really well, you think your organization is really good.
I'm going to win. And then, bam, someone comes in from the outside and strikes.
And you have to be ready for that.
You have to anticipate that.
You have to have a retaliatory plan in place for that.
The good news about Brandon, he's got all that, so I think he's going to be fine.
Can he win without a runoff?
I don't know. We'll find out on March 5th.
But I think he's going to come pretty close.
uh... and he will be the absolute favorite going on into uh...
to win the primary and to uh... to win the election are you ready to lose weight but not sure where to start i understand debbie and i were right there where you are a year ago let me tell you why we chose phd weight loss and nutrition and why i so highly recommend their program first doctor ashley lucas has her phd in chronic disease and sports nutrition a program is based on years of research, it's science-based, it works.
The PhD program starts with nutrition, but it's so much more.
They know that 90% of permanent change comes from the mind.
They work on eliminating the reason you gain this weight in the first place.
There are no shortcuts, no pills, no injections, just solid science-based nutrition and behavior change.
And finally, probably most important, I lost 27 pounds, Debbie lost 24.
We haven't gained the weight back.
That's because PhD Weight Loss and Nutrition has a lifelong maintenance program.
So if you're ready to lose weight for the last time, keep it off.
Call 864-644-1900 to get started.
You can also go online at myphdweightloss.com.
Do what I did, what hundreds of my listeners have done.
Call today, 864-644-1900.
We all know aches and pains come with getting older, but it doesn't mean you have to accept it.
That's why I want to tell you about Leah from Ohio and her Relief Factor story.
One Sunday, Leah was sitting on the couch.
She was in so much pain, she was in tears.
That's when she said, let me try Relief Factor in just eight days.
She found relief. She continued to get, quote, better and better.
She says, I am truly amazed at this product.
Debbie and I have seen so many of these testimonials, and we know from personal experience that Relief Factor works.
Debbie can do push-ups, planks, which for many years she wasn't able to do.
So if you're tired of living with aches and pains, see how Relief Factor, a daily drug-free supplement, can help you feel and live better every day.
To get started, try this.
It's the Relief Factor 3-Week Quick Start Kit.
It's only $19.95.
Comes with a feel-better or your money-back guarantee.
Here's the number to call, 800-4-RELIEF. Once again, 800-4-RELIEF or you can go to relieffactor.com.
You'll feel the difference.
I was a little startled a couple of days ago when I was scrolling social media to see a post by one of these NeverTrump attorneys.
This guy's name is Ron Filipkowski.
And The group that Dinesh D'Souza replied, he says replied, he means relied on for his 2000 Mules movie that Trump hyped, was ordered by a judge to produce the evidence under oath in a court of law.
They had nothing. I'm like, what?
So then I look at what he attaches, the link.
And the link is an article that seems to be from Newsmax.
At least that's what the meme would suggest.
A conservative group has told a Georgia judge it It doesn't have evidence to support its claims of illegal ballot stuffing during the 2020 general election and a runoff two months later.
So I look at the Newsmax link and I realize it's not Newsmax.
Newsmax has merely reprinted, which sometimes news sites will do, it's an AP article.
It's an Associated Press article.
And of course, I'm on my high alert with AP. These people are some of the biggest, like most accomplished liars in the business.
Very often they will have outright lies in their articles, but even if they don't, even if the article itself seems to be reasonably accurate, they will stick a headline on the article that doesn't match what's in the article.
And since most people don't read the article, they conclude that the headline accurately reflects the content of the article.
So I pulled up the article from AP, and sure enough, the headline says exactly what I just read.
But then when you begin to read the article, right away my suspicions are raised, because here's what the article says.
In their written response to this court filing, attorneys for True the Vote said the group had no names or other documentary evidence to share.
No names and no, quote, documentary evidence.
And so I thought to myself...
Of course that's true.
True the vote doesn't have any names because the cell phone geo-tracking of the mules doesn't yield names.
It yields only cell phone IDs.
Cell phone IDs are distinctive to a particular cell phone.
But of course, in theory, it's possible.
Let's say, for example, I gave my cell phone to Debbie and she took it to the mall and somebody geotracked her.
It would be my cell phone, but it would be she who was the person associated with the phone at that particular time.
The point being here that what happens very often in court documents is someone says, please supply all the names you have.
And True the Vote goes, well, we don't have any names.
And then AP jumps in and goes, whoa!
True the Vote is admitting that they have absolutely no evidence that there even were any mules.
So this is the level of reasoning or non-reasoning that we are dealing with.
So I'm reading through the article...
And the article is one fallacy on top of another.
Let me read this statement here.
A state election board investigation found that surveillance camera footage that the film claimed showed ballot stuffing actually showed people submitting ballots for themselves and family members who lived with them, which is allowed under Georgia law.
Now, this is being disputed in a single case.
In other words, one guy who was on the surveillance camera claims that the ballots that he was seen in the movie stuffing into the box represented ballots for his family members.
But the idea that the surveillance footage shown in the movie...
Let alone all the surveillance footage and the possession of True the Vote has been somehow shown to be, oh, all these people were submitting ballots for family members.
There is absolutely no study that shows that.
There is no investigation, state board or otherwise, that proves that.
This is just distortions coming out of AP. A judge ordered True the Vote to turn over names and contact information for anyone who has provided information.
Now, True the Vote admits that they had at least one and maybe more whistleblowers who came to them early on and described this voter fraud scheme, and the whistleblowers came forward on a confidential line on the condition of anonymity, and the anonymity was granted.
And none of True the Vote's evidence relied on the whistleblower.
At no point did True the Vote say, we've got this anonymous guy and he claims X, Y, and Z. True the Vote went out to corroborate and verify and illustrate on their own work.
In other words, if the whistleblower says, there's a mule operation going on in Fulton County, truth of the vote was like, all right, we're going to buy the cell phone data for Fulton County and look to see if we can find cell phones going from one mail-in drop box to another, to another, to another. So, in other words, we are going to...
Seek to verify that what these whistleblowers are saying is true.
So Truth of Vote doesn't want to and is not going to provide the names of these informants and whistleblowers.
And this is somehow again treated as proof that they have absolutely no evidence.
The article goes on to talk about, please provide recordings, transcripts, witness statements, and other documents.
Now, notice what the article doesn't say.
Because if you watch 2,000 Mules, did we rely on recordings, transcripts, witness statements?
No. There was, in one case, a woman in Arizona who came forward and was featured with her identity concealed on the camera.
But by and large, the two forms of evidence in the movie were A... Cell phone geo-tracking and the other surveillance video.
So, at first, you know, the left was saying the cell phone tracking is very inaccurate.
It's very unreliable.
Then they realized that you can't keep saying that when every burglary, every murder trial, January 6th, all rely on cell phone geo-tracking.
So... No way is there any allusion to that in this supposed debunking of True the Vote.
And second, no one is claiming that the surveillance video is inaccurate.
No one is saying, oh no, that's not the surveillance video.
Oh, you know, Dinesh and his friends took that video themselves.
No, everyone agrees that the cell phone geotracking evidence is there.
Everyone agrees that the surveillance video exists.
Some of it, of course, was shown in the movie.
A movie is a 90-minute depiction of the evidence accumulated by True the Vote.
So, and I even pulled up the actual court filing and went through it, went through the actual questions that were put before True the Vote, and I realized that they're asking questions that don't pertain to cell phone geo-tracking and don't pertain to surveillance video.
So for True the Vote to say, no, we don't have that, is not to admit absolutely anything at all.
So, for example, here's a case where it says TTV, through the vote, does not have in its possession custody or control identity and contact information.
In other words, you want names, you want identities, you want contact information.
We don't have that.
So, Truth of Vote itself has put out its own statement, basically saying this is a classic smear, but I just think it's important to show the kind of dishonest operation that is carried on.
And of course, once it comes out in AP, tons of other people put it out.
I cannot tell you how many of you, well, Dinesh, will you now admit that your documentary was bogus?
Attach the AP article.
So, my point is, this is the kind of frivolous, hasty, irresponsible type of...
The article itself is dishonest, and then the commentary, which relies on it, is just simply lazy.
Because, quite frankly, you don't even have to do any investigation or have the background knowledge I do.
You just have to read the article to see that the article does not talk about the two types of evidence shown in the movie.
It's actually talking about providing the names of informants, providing their addresses and locations, providing their phone numbers, and for truth of vote to say, we don't have that, or we're not going to give that to you, is not the same as saying, we don't have evidence.
There's so much global instability and craziness and also quite a bit at home.
North Korea on the brink, Iran increasing its aggression, issues in Russia.
So what are you doing to shelter your savings and investments from potential major setbacks to the economy?
It's not too late to diversify an old IRA or 401k into gold and Birch Gold Group can help you to do that.
As opposed to many other investments, gold thrives in times of uncertainty.
It's an important part of diversifying your savings.
It's part of my savings strategy and here's how Birch Gold can help make it a part of yours.
Birch Gold will help you convert an existing IRA or 401k into a tax-sheltered IRA in gold and it doesn't cost you a penny out of pocket.
So just text Dinesh to 989898 for a free information kit.
No obligation, just information.
With an A-plus rating, with the Better Business Bureau, countless five-star reviews, thousands of happy customers, Birch Gold can help you to arm yourself with the knowledge of diversification through precious metals.
So go ahead, text Dinesh to 989898, claim your free information kit and protect your savings with gold today.
How are you feeling these days?
I feel great.
One of the reasons I feel so good is because I take this.
It's Balance of Nature fruits and veggies in a capsule, so easy to take.
They have an amazing story of how this product was developed by Dr. Douglas Howard.
It's right there on their website.
Balance of Nature receives over a thousand success stories every single month.
They have hundreds of thousands of customers who have purchased billions of capsules of their fruits and veggies over the past 20 years.
Their products are gluten-free.
They're non-GMO.
They contain no added sugars or synthetics.
So I think if you're looking for something to make you feel better naturally, you should definitely give Balance of Nature a try.
In fact, order today.
Whether you order online or call them direct, you've got to use promo code AMERICA and you'll you'll get the special offer 35% off.
Here's the number to call. 800-246-8751.
Once again, it's 800-246-8751.
Or you can go to balanceofnature.com.
When you use discount code AMERICA, you'll get 35% off.
Guys, I'm delighted to welcome a new guest to the podcast.
He is an author, a veteran, Jeremy Stalnecker, CEO of Mighty Oaks Foundation, which is a nonprofit organization dedicated to helping military warriors and families suffering from the unseen wounds of combat, such as post-traumatic stress disorder.
Jeremy, welcome to the show.
me. This is obviously a difficult topic and yet one that really needs to be faced. I suppose it is true that veterans have in all wars, going back perhaps to the Civil War, maybe even World War I and II, that these problems were there, but maybe they weren't so much recognized in the past because you don't hear that much about them.
Can you talk a little bit just about what veterans deal with sort of after the fighting is over, when they come home?
What is the world that awaits them and what do they have to contend with?
Well, Dinesh, thank you for having this conversation and having me on to talk about it.
You're absolutely right. These are not new issues.
These are, in fact, we can go back into antiquity and read even to the Old Testament Psalms.
Psalm 6 really is an expression of a warrior and the brokenness that he's feeling and the hopelessness and despair, crying out to God.
And throughout the generations up into our present time, these are issues that veterans have faced coming home from combat, coming home from war.
And so often there is a loss of purpose, there is a loss of identity, and those losses can lead to frustration, anger, and hopelessness that then so often, and we're told, you know, we can talk about the statistics around this, but so often leads to the taking of one's life.
When that hopelessness sets in, the darkness becomes overwhelming.
And the taking of one's life becomes really the only option, at least it feels to that person.
And so this is something that goes back to the beginning, but something that we are identifying now, we thought it would get better.
As culture declines, this seems to be becoming a much bigger issue.
I remember, Jeremy, one of the...
I think this was one of the closing scenes of the movie Patton where, you know, the people are celebrating the end of the war.
They're dancing in the streets.
They're throwing up banners and so on.
And then they flash to Patton and he just looks forlorn.
He's a fish out of water.
He... And what I found so striking and in a way poignant about that is that this was a good war.
Patton was a war hero.
His name was known all over America.
And yet, having come back from battle, he almost came back to a country that was a little unrecognizable to him.
So is this a phenomenon that occurs regardless of the nature of the war and regardless of whether you win or lose?
I think it is. You know, my personal story, I pointed my life toward military service since I was a teenager.
I went through the process of going to officer candidate school at the Marine Corps.
I served as an infantry officer in Iraq.
Came home from Iraq, processed out of the Marine Corps, and a month after coming home, I was serving on a church staff.
And so you've got this complete dichotomy of combat to working in a church environment.
And over the next 12 months, I just about lost everything.
My job, my family, and had I gone long enough without people intervening, I probably would have lost my life.
And so much of that, we can talk about trauma, we can talk about all the things related to just the experience of combat.
But for me, and I think for so many men and women coming home from those combat environments, or even just transitioning out of the military, there's such a loss of identity.
I knew what I was doing there.
There may have been chaos, but it was clear.
I knew exactly what I was supposed to accomplish, and now I have no idea how to function in this new environment.
Not only that, I had some prestige.
I had people coming to me for things, and now I'm brand new to this.
I don't understand them, and Honestly, they don't understand me, nor should they, but that becomes very frustrating.
And again, you look around and go, no one gets this, which then so often leads to that isolation.
If they don't understand me, I'll just pull into myself.
And that's a very, very dangerous path to walk.
So I don't think it matters if you're Patton or a guy like me who just came home to a loving wife and a great church family, but had no idea how to function.
You have got to deal with that reality of the new life.
Jeremy, through the Mighty Oaks Foundation and on your own, you have ruminated about this in your own life.
You've obviously got a lot of information about the lives of others.
What is it that makes the veteran go to the extreme of even contemplating or committing suicide?
I mean, that is something that runs against the natural instinct.
By and large, people are in Very difficult environments and they still kind of hang in there.
War itself is one of those environments.
I mean, isn't there something sort of almost strange about the fact that you're in a world where you could lose your life at the hands of an enemy and then you come home and you take your own life.
I mean, that would be, to someone like me, it's almost unfathomable.
So, help us to understand what takes the combat warrior to that edge.
One of the things that we talk about in this book that we just produced is that we're often fighting the wrong enemy when we talk about this issue of suicide and the numbers around veteran suicide are crazy.
The Department of Defense says it's over 20 a day.
A recent probably better study puts the number at probably over 40 a day veterans taking their lives.
We know that there were 7,000 plus men and women killed in Iraq and Afghanistan in combat theater.
Over 30,000 cents have taken their lives.
So it's an enormous problem, and it really does beg the question why.
I like to look outside of the veteran community sometimes to say, well, how does this compare?
Veterans are 22% more likely to take their lives than a civilian.
However, in the United States last year, 50,000 non-military folks took their lives.
So this is a major issue, but we often fight the wrong battle.
We're trying to stop suicide.
When really what we have to do, and again, I think as Christians we have a better opportunity to understand this, the enemy is not suicide.
The enemy is a lack of purpose and a lack of identity.
When we learn who we are and we understand that there is hope, there is purpose, then we can fight through whatever emotional traumatic issues we have.
But when men and women who have had identity and have had purpose in such a pronounced way now have it taken away, and for veterans, this is much bigger than most people in life.
They've had so much purpose and so much identity and it all made sense and they knew what they were supposed to do and they wore the uniform and they had the rank and now they have nothing.
If they don't reconnect with purpose and identity, it will take you to dark places.
And I think that's why, to me, that's the difference between those who have served and those who haven't.
And then add to that just the trauma of combat and the loss of friends and so forth.
And it just becomes a compounded issue.
How do you think, Jeremy, this issue is best dealt with? I mean, I'm trying to think about how does one help someone get that sense of purpose?
I remember after the Vietnam War, when a lot of those Vietnam guys came back, people would say things like, well, you know, they're being treated badly because they didn't sort of win the same way that World War II was a kind of unquestioned victory for the United States.
So we need to appreciate our vets.
And it seems to me that that's clearly part of it, a public appreciation and a recognition of what military men and women go through.
But it sounds to me like that there's more involved.
What does Mighty Oaks Foundation do?
What would you do if a vet came to you and said...
I don't know where to go.
How can you help me recover my sense of identity and my sense of purpose?
And that's the right question to ask, and that's the one I wish more people were asking, is what can we do?
In this little book that we just put together, and it's a free resource, we're not trying to sell it, we just want people to have it.
There are three sections.
One speaks to the person struggling.
One speaks to the family member or friend who has people that are struggling.
And then one speaks to the pastoral counselor or the church world who is trying to help people through that.
So that's the right question.
What we look at as an organization is there are therapies.
There are medications.
So many things we talk about and we hear about all of the time.
And those have They're placed and they can be helpful in the right place.
But again, if the foundation isn't right, everything else will fall short.
So where we start is with establishing a foundation.
God, the Creator, has a plan for your life.
And that plan is what interjects us.
It's what gives us hope.
The Bible talks about Jesus as our hope.
Why do we have hope?
In spite of the world, in spite of what's happened to us, or where we've been, or this new world that we've entered into, why do we have hope?
Because God the Creator created us with purpose.
And if we'll align our life to the life He created us to live, we can move forward in spite of the rest of it.
And so we just change the starting point.
And I think a lot of people in the therapeutic world say, well, we're going to try all these things, and if religion fits somewhere, then we'll add it.
We say, no, you have to start with the foundation of faith.
It's not about you.
It's about realizing who you were created to be and what you were created to do, and the fact that you have a purposeful, hopeful future if you'll begin to walk that out.
Once we can get people to understand that, then we can walk that out with them, and it's a daily walk, it's a daily fight, a daily conversation, but it starts with the foundation of faith that becomes that foundation of hope.
What you're saying now is to me very radical and very profound because it runs against the message that is constantly hammered in our culture, obviously not just to veterans but to everybody.
So the message to our culture is that there is no identity or there is no purpose You're good to go.
The starting point is to recognize that there is a higher power, a transcendent force that establishes, can give you a sense of purpose if you sort of tap into that.
So spirituality, God, Christianity seems to me to be at the center of the rescue program, doesn't it?
It is. And so, again, taking out the veteran issue that we're talking about, when we look at those 50,000 plus folks in the United States last year who took their lives, we understand that suicide is the second leading cause of death in most age demographics in the United States.
Well, why is that? Why was last year the worst year for suicide in the history of the United States of America because of exactly what you're talking about?
When we take out faith, when we say things like, you need to rely on yourself, and we get into this positivity movement, and we need to be positive and encouraging.
I'm for that. But what we have in us that is good, and what we have in us that is hopeful, and what we have in us that is meaningful does come from God.
And if we eliminate that, then the best we have is us.
Dinesh, I always use this example or this kind of definition of hope.
For me, hope is looking outside of the circle that you're standing in and understanding that there is someone bigger than you and bigger than your situation that you can put your hope in, your confidence in.
Hope doesn't come from looking at me and saying, well, I guess this is the best we've got.
Hope comes when we lift our eyes up and say, I can have confidence in God because He loves me, He created me, and I have purpose.
That's a really good message, guys.
We're talking to the CEO of the Mighty Oaks Foundation, Jeremy Stallmaker.
His book, Not the Solution, Winning the Battle Against Suicide.
Jeremy, thank you very much for joining me.
Thank you, Dinesh. Really appreciate it.
Mike Lindell and the employees of MyPillow want to thank my listeners for your continued support.
So to thank you, they're having an overstock clearance sale right now for the best prices ever when you use promo code Dinesh and you get free shipping on your entire order.
Get 50% off the MyPillow 2.0.
That's the pillows. Also on the brand new flannel sheets, you can get six-pack towel sets for just $29.98.
Take advantage of the free shipping on the larger items, mattresses, mattress toppers.
They're 100% made in the USA. On sale for as low as $99.99.
So everything is on sale from the brand new kitchen towels, the bath towels, the robes, the dog beds, the blankets, the couch pillows, and so much more.
So check it out. To get the best specials ever, go to MyPillow.com, use promo code Dinesh, or you can call 800-876-0227.
Again, it's 800-876-0227.
Get free shipping on your entire order while supplies last.
We're in the first half of Harry Jaffa's book, Crisis of the House Divided.
This is the case for Douglass.
And just as if you were trying to understand an important debate going on today, you would need to have reference points.
You would need to know what certain terms refer to.
Otherwise, you wouldn't be able to make sense of it.
And similarly, we need to understand some central...
Plans and proposals and laws in the middle of the 19th century in order to figure out what it is that Douglas and Lincoln are arguing about.
And the reason that these issues are fundamental is that even though they go back to the 1820s, they are at the core of the divide in the country.
They're at the core of what ultimately leads to the Civil War.
The Civil War is a consequence of a failure of compromise, a breakdown in the compromises that had held the country together for 30 plus years.
Now we shouldn't think of a compromise, particularly today we tend to think of compromise as a sellout.
But a compromise isn't necessarily a sellout.
It can be, but it can also be a bargain.
Because if you want something and that something has value, and I want something and that has value, and we have some mutual recognition that what the other person wants is not unreasonable for them to want, and we want to live in the same country together.
we've got to figure out a way to strike a bargain, to strike a deal.
And striking a deal is a little bit better than striking the other guy, or to put it differently, striking a deal is a little better than coming to blows.
So, the terms I'm thinking about, the reference points are the Missouri Compromise, absolutely essential, the Wilmot Proviso, I'll talk a little bit about that, the LeCompton Constitution, I'll talk a little bit about that.
But the Missouri Compromise is the starting point.
By and large, at the time of the debate between Lincoln and Douglas, both in 1858, the time of the Lincoln-Douglas debates, and two years later, in 1860, the Republican Party, We want a full restoration of the Missouri Compromise.
We stand on the Missouri Compromise.
And Douglass had essentially orchestrated the overthrow of the Missouri Compromise and its replacement with the doctrine of popular sovereignty.
So let's think a little bit about the Missouri Compromise because What's interesting is that the Missouri Compromise, even though a compromise, was something that had been pushed through by the southern states.
And the southern states at the time saw the Missouri Compromise as kind of a win for them.
And to a large degree it was a win for them.
They got a good bargain.
Now the North got something out of the bargain too, but it seems that the South got the better end of the bargain.
And this was in the early 1820s.
Now, if the South got the better end of the bargain, you might ask, why would the South want to move away from the Missouri Compromise?
Why would they want something else?
Why would they go for Douglas' popular sovereignty?
Why wouldn't they just say, let's leave things exactly the way they are?
And the answer to that question is that the circumstances between the 1820s and the 1850s had changed dramatically.
In other words, unforeseen by the South, there was a change in the speed and degree of westward expansion of the United States.
Lots of free states were coming into the Union and We're good to go.
It seems to us obvious.
It seems to us inevitable.
How can you have an expanding country that stops short of going all the way to California and going all the way up to Washington State?
The borders of the United States seem kind of almost predetermined now as if there's some law of history that drives things in that direction.
But nobody saw it that way.
And in fact, there are no such laws of history now.
These things happen because of human action and because of contingency, because of chance.
So, now, the Missouri Compromise was a compromise that drew a line, and this was the so-called 36-30 line, the Mason-Dixon line.
And some people think the Missouri Compromise said slavery to the south of the line and no slavery to the north of the line.
But this is actually not quite correct.
It's very important to realize that the Missouri Compromise said that slavery might exist south of the line and cannot exist north of the line.
So this is the bargain that the North got out of it.
The North was able, in the Missouri Compromise, to say that We're good to go.
Another way to put it is that Douglass' own doctrine of popular sovereignty applied to the South, but not to the North.
So under the Missouri Compromise, Southern states could make a decision, vote slavery up or down for themselves, whereas Northern states would have freedom straight out.
That was the Missouri Compromise.
So if that was the case, it seems like a big victory for the North.
How could it possibly be a benefit to the South?
And the answer to that is the simple fact that in practical terms, the South was gaining territory and it was not obvious that the North was going to gain equivalent territory.
This is going back to the early 1820s when the Missouri Compromise was hashed out.
So, for example... Very interestingly, Missouri, which is a border state, and most of which, most of Missouri is north of the Mason-Dixon line.
This is the funny thing about it.
So even though the Missouri Compromise drew this line, Missouri, which was on the upper side of this line, was a slave state.
Missouri had slavery.
It was one of those so-called border states that had slavery.
And Arkansas was about to enter the Union.
It had been organized in 1819.
In 1820, it was really close to being a candidate for admission.
So the South was going to gain another important state into the sort of pro, into the slavery camp.
And there were some northern states on the horizon.
But think about this.
Iowa was not admitted to the Union until 1846.
Minnesota 1849.
So all of this is like a quarter century into the future.
So even though it seemed like the North was getting a kind of a bargain, oh, we can't have slavery north of the Mason-Dixon line, it wasn't obvious what actual states would be joining the freedom camp, so to speak.
Whereas the South was like, okay, we get Missouri.
Later, of course, the South would get other states like Texas.
Now... Between the 1820s and the 1850s, the situation changed because what happened was another half dozen northern states were either in the process of or had already joined the Union.
So there is a rapid movement toward new territories becoming states and And it suddenly dawns on the southern states that the bargain that looked pretty good in 1820 isn't looking so good in 1850, let alone in 1858 when this debate is taking place.
So now you can understand better why Lincoln and the Republicans grab onto the Missouri Compromise and go, we are the Missouri Compromise men.
Douglas has horribly overturned the Missouri Compromise, and this is truly evil, and this makes Douglas into a pro-slavery man.
But the reason for the enthusiasm of the Republicans...
And of Lincoln was that suddenly this line became a line that confined slavery and allowed these new states north of the Mason-Dixon line to come in and these states were shifting the balance of power toward the free states.
I mean, the balance of power had shifted so much by 1860.
Think about it. That Abraham Lincoln did not need to win a single slave state.
In order to win decisively in the Electoral College and to win decisively in a three-man race.
So in 1860, there was a Northern Democrat, which is Douglas.
There was a Southern Democrat, Breckinridge.
But even if you were to add up the electoral votes of Breckinridge and Douglas, Abraham Lincoln would still have...
Would still become the president.
He would still have a majority in the electoral college.
He wasn't even on the ballot in 10 of the slave states.
So all of this is a way of saying that the pendulum or the balance had shifted dramatically in the favor of the free states.
The free states, therefore, were becoming more I won't say greedy, but what they were basically saying is, we have a chance to win it all.
Let's now create a situation, let's now campaign that no new territory, no new state coming into the Union is allowed to have slavery.
And this, Douglass was trying to avoid because he knew this was utterly unacceptable to the South.
The South would see in this a formula for political extinction and Essentially, every time the United States expands, the South sort of takes one, takes a blow in the belly.
So, you have to recognize Douglas' popular sovereignty, the moral case for it, is here is a way to give everybody their own choice.
We don't need to put the South in a position where it's facing the inevitability of losing.
The South may lose anyway.
And Douglass was, as a Northern Democrat, he was a partisan of the North.
He actually wasn't saying, I want the South to win.
He was saying, we have to create a situation that's fair to everybody, a sort of principal playing field.
And his principal playing field was the doctrine of choice, was the doctrine of agreeing to disagree, was the doctrine that we've been talking about called popular sovereignty.
Subscribe to the Dinesh D'Souza Podcast on Apple, Google, and Spotify.
Export Selection