All Episodes
Previous Next
March 5, 2025 - Dinesh D'Souza
51:14
THE GRANDMASTER Dinesh D’Souza Podcast Ep1034
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Thank you.
Thank you.
Coming up last night, what a speech.
I'm going to reveal the true genius of Trump's address to Congress, as well as the strikingly tone-deaf response of the Democrats.
Attorney John Pierce, founder of the National Constitutional Law Union, joins me.
He's going to give me his take on Trump's speech and also legal challenges to Trump's executive orders, a big recent Supreme Court decision about that.
Hey guys, if you're watching on Rumble or YouTube or X, or listening on Apple, Google, or Spotify, please subscribe to my channel.
Hit the subscribe or the follow button, and in some cases, the notifications button, so you're notified, particularly on YouTube, where let's just say they don't amplify my podcast.
In fact, the opposite.
This is the Dinesh D'Souza Podcast.
America needs this voice.
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.
What a night it was last night.
Debbie and I went up to our media room.
We got all set up with our drinks.
We knew it was going to be something.
Oh, Debbie says, clarify drinks.
These were not alcoholic beverages all around.
No, in fact, not that I'm unwilling to indulge every now and then, but Debbie is a teetotaler.
And even my drinking days may be somewhat numbered.
Recently, by the way, Debbie made this pot roast, and she's like, we need four ounces of red wine.
So I open this fairly decent bottle of wine, pour out four ounces, and then I look at the rest of the bottle, and I decided to put it in a decanter.
And while I'm pouring it, she goes, you're not planning on drinking that, are you?
And I'm like, what else am I going to do with it?
So anyway, this is the domestic tyranny to which I'm occasionally subjected.
But we're all perched in our media room.
And by the way, it's really fun, you know, with Brandon Gill in the room.
We were kind of looking for him.
Danielle was also there, not with the members of Congress, of course, but upstairs in the gallery.
And then later, I saw photos that they posted.
Danielle's hanging out with Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Brandon's hanging out with all kinds of people, chatting at one point with J.D. Vance, and that was on Fox News.
So the whole thing is very cool.
Cool for us, at least.
As parents to be taking all this in with, in a sense, an insider in the room.
Now, Trump came out guns blazing and delivered a speech, I think, that was simultaneously unifying but also divisive.
Now, that may seem an odd thing to say, but I... I want to explicate it.
By unifying, what I mean is that Trump takes issues that are issues on which most of the country completely agrees.
You could call them 80-20 issues.
And by 80-20, I mean that the vast majority of people fall on the 80 side.
And there's just a small group of sulking Americans who are like, no, I don't want to do that.
I don't want to seal the border.
I like MS-13 coming over.
I like to see an occasional American killed by all this.
Or what is this nonsense about, you know, God made boys and girls and made them perfect just the way they are?
I think that people should be able to transition between genders and sexes and maybe even between species.
Who knows?
So this is the 80-20 divide, right?
Because if you fall in the 20 here, you're essentially...
Out of sync with common sense.
You're talking a certain kind of political gobbledygook.
But there are always going to be some people like that.
I mean, that's why our country is not set up for unanimity.
In fact, no group can operate by unanimity, right?
If you have a men's group or a women's group, what movie are we going to see?
Well, not everyone's going to agree.
So you're going to always have division.
But I want to make the point that in our country, typically...
The issues fall pretty closely on the 50-50 divide.
So let's look at this.
And this is true, by the way, not just now, but even in the past.
You know, take an issue like, is the Soviet Union a real threat?
This was in the Reagan years.
About 50% or thereabouts would say, yes.
The other 50% would say, no, we need a nuclear freeze.
Should we cut taxes?
50%, probably mostly taxpayers, go, yeah, we should.
But a bunch of other people go, oh, no, that's going to endanger domestic programs.
50-50 or thereabouts.
Should we outlaw abortion?
Yes, says one bunch of people, and no, says basically an equally vociferous bunch of people on the other side.
That's roughly a 50-50 issue.
And so it goes.
That's the norm.
Part, I think, of the genius of Trump here was that Trump, by and large, did not go into 50-50 issues.
The only area where Trump departed from that norm and probably went into a 50-50 issue, but a 50-50 issue so obscure that most people don't have a well-formed opinion on it, is on the issue of tariffs.
Every other issue was 80-20.
The border, 80-20.
Crime in the cities, 80-20.
The idea of eliminating waste and fraud in the government, 80-20, especially on the enumerated fraud that Trump went into.
That was, in a way, my favorite part of the speech.
He just began to recite case after case of outrageous spending and to see the Democrats.
I mean, I'll talk about their reaction in a moment, but it was devastating.
Who could be for those things?
Who could believe that this is a careful or sensible allocation of taxpayer money?
And then Trump goes on to talk about Social Security checks mailed out to people who are 110, 120, 130, 140 years old.
By the way, one person was 300 years old, Debbie reminds me.
Now Bernie Sanders goes...
People who are 140, 150 and 300 years are not receiving Social Security checks.
And if you think about that statement literally, it's true.
Those people are not receiving Social Security checks because they're dead.
Somebody else is receiving their Social Security check and cashing it.
I think that's the point.
The waste and fraud continues because the check is being mailed out.
It's not coming back, which means somebody is putting that money in the bank, even though Mr. So-and-so not only is not with us, but hasn't been with us for some time, if not for generations.
Now, after the speech, we have Mr. Bill Kristol, Never Trumper, disseminating an article where he basically says something like, you know, this speech is...
It's horrible.
Trump's approval ratings are already plummeting and things are going to get far worse after this speech.
And, well, let's just say that Bill couldn't be more wrong and the writer of that article couldn't be more wrong because we have right here the verdict.
This is from CBS News.
The percentage of Americans who approve of the speech 76%.
Disapprove?
23%.
So, what I said a moment ago, the 80-20 issue, it's almost mirrored in the percentages for and against the speech.
Roughly 80 for and roughly 20 against.
And I think what we saw in the speech is...
is a lot of very powerful statements, memorable statements that stand out.
One of them was in connection with political persecution and, in fact, the criminalization, attempted criminalization of Trump himself.
How did that work out for you?
At another point, Trump makes the point about the border.
The Democrats keep saying, oh, you know, we need new laws.
There's nothing we can do about the border until we have new laws.
And Trump goes, well?
All you needed was a new president.
Boom!
Very effective line.
I don't know who wrote the speech.
I've heard reports that Stephen Miller, I'm sure he was involved.
I don't know if he's the guy who drafted the speech, but terrific point.
And so Trump was really very much in his element.
Now, when I said earlier that he was unifying and he was divisive, Great speeches like this are divisive in the right way because they're not trying to unify the whole country.
You can't.
They're not deliberately trying to divide down the middle either.
They're trying to divide on the 80-20 principle.
In other words, force the opposition to defend things that seem indefensible.
And when you had the Democrats, sit there sullen.
In some cases, they tried the bingo card approach.
Some of them took off their shirts and they were resist on the back of their t-shirts and some of them walked out.
And of course, Al Green had to be basically yanked out.
This was a very bad look.
It was a very bad look because they weren't even cheering for the benign stuff the Democrats normally cheer for.
And Republicans do the same.
If it's a Democratic president, Obama...
You don't cheer for when he talks about, you know, I'm going to raise your taxes, you know, you're the party of millionaires.
Okay, you don't cheer for that.
But then he brings out some handicapped kid or he brings out some military hero and the Republicans dutifully stand up and clap because, well, even if you don't want to clap for Obama, you clap for those guys because they are admirable in their own way.
Not to mention the fact that you look terrible if there's some emotionally powerful story being told and you just appear callously indifferent or even sullenly opposed to what the president is saying.
Debbie made the point to me this morning that in a way we begin to see everyone says about Trump, you know, he's such an egotist, he's such a narcissist, it's all about him.
But you saw in the speech that that is not true.
He meets a woman in Butler, Pennsylvania.
95 years old, and she tells him about her son who remains captive in Russia.
Trump tells her, if I'm elected, I'll get him out.
Now, it's so easy to say that in the campaign Trump is shaking thousands of hands, meeting all these people.
You say it, you know, in an attempt to appease her and also get her vote, but you don't actually do it.
Well, Trump did it.
He remembered, and he did it, and he didn't have to do it.
And so that shows somebody who has other people's welfare.
He knows how much it means to her to have her son back, and there he was in the room.
The fact that Trump didn't just acknowledge these women who have suffered terrible tragedies because their kid has been killed by an illegal, but Trump takes an effort to memorialize it.
I thought it was very touching when he said, I'm naming this wildlife reserve so that your daughter, who is no longer with us, so her name lives on.
You know, it's not too many people get something named after them, whether it's a road or a bridge or in this case a wildlife reserve.
And so Trump is not just acknowledging these people, but showing his real regard for preserving their memory.
And paying tribute to their family.
So these are not in any way the hallmarks of some kind of a puffed-up narcissist.
Trump also had this very effective way of personalizing an issue.
He doesn't just talk about boys being transitioned into girls.
There's a mom sitting right there.
And her kid was transitioned without her knowledge by the teachers, by the administrators.
They gave the kid, you know, the kid had a so-called new name.
The old name was a dead name and new pronouns.
So, in other words, they are essentially stealing your kid.
And this is going on right under your nose.
So to personalize it, to personify it, to see it right in front of you, I think very, very effective.
Now, let me say a word about the Democrats.
And that is that I think that their actions here are absolute disaster.
I mean, it's not only a moral disaster.
Because Debbie goes like, do these people not have a conscience?
Do they not have a heart?
Do they actually approve of crime in the cities?
Is this something that they want?
The open border and its consequences?
Is that something that they can live with?
I've got to say that I think that the shocking and frightening answer is yes.
I think that this gets to the heart of why the Democrats were up against the wall, why they were in a trap.
Because optically, it might seem like they could applaud.
But here's why they can't applaud.
And it's because they supported these policies.
They still support them.
Trump, in a way, was very generous with them because he kept talking about Biden and Harris.
Biden and Harris did this.
Biden and Harris did that.
I think where actually Trump could have gone more for the jugular but didn't is saying...
And you people to the right of me, you Democrats, all supported him.
You didn't utter a word of criticism.
You were on board with all this.
Even when the consequences became manifest, you were completely silent.
You showed no sense of regretting the death of Lakin Riley.
Now, you showed a lot of concern for George Floyd.
All this, you know, kneeling and weeping and casketing and funeraling all over this home invader and acknowledged criminal who's basically, whose body is like jacked up with drugs and appears like that is what killed him, at least according to the medical rule.
This is your hero.
This criminal is someone who is lionized by you.
You're like the party of George Floyd.
Well...
If you're the party of George Floyd and we're the party of Lake and Riley, I kind of have an idea of which party is headed for long-term majority status.
You just can't win that way.
But my point is that the Democrats are so roped in.
The open border policies were their policies, which they cynically but relentlessly supported.
Crime in the cities.
Look, if there was crime in one city but not the other cities, you'd go, well, the Democrats really blew it.
They appointed a soft-on-crime.
No.
You've got Democratic soft-on-crime DAs all over the place.
You've got Democratic mayors who allow this stuff to get out of hand all over the place.
Pretty much every major Democratic city is plagued by serious crime.
So you have to, at some point, And in fact, we know this because they never go, whoops, oh no, we can't believe the crime rates have gone up.
We've got to take measures to bring them back down.
They don't.
They allow the crime rate to get worse and worse and worse.
And sometimes, as in the case of Chicago, they throw out one guy, you know, Beetlejuice, and then they bring in another mayor, Brandon Johnson, who seems to be worse than Beetlejuice.
So, this is the Democratic M.O. This is their formula.
And Trump, by calling them out on it and forcing them to defend it, or at least lapse into this kind of sullen silence, I think told us all we need to know.
Debbie and I are tired of looking for good movies to watch, and we're tired of the destructive, sometimes sicko content flooding our screens.
Well, this is why I joined the Angel Guild community.
I wanted entertainment that inspires and uplifts, doesn't drag us down.
With Angel Guild, I can vote on upcoming films and support movies that reflect values that I align with.
Plus, I get early access to inspiring content.
I no longer have Hollywood entertainment pushing its agenda into my home.
Angel Studios is leading the charge, creating high-quality, faith-filled films like Sound of Freedom, Cabrini, and Homestead.
These movies are powerful, impactful, and must-see if you haven't already.
If you want to make a real difference, where we put our dollars shapes the future of entertainment.
Let's support content that amplifies light and protects our kids from harmful influences.
Join me in making a difference today by visiting angel.com forward slash Dinesh.
That's angel.com forward slash Dinesh to join the Angel Guild now.
You don't go out and buy a life jacket when the boat is already sinking and you don't buy gold when the economy has already collapsed.
Well, clearly others are heeding this advice as gold hit all-time highs the first part of 2025. Hey, it's not too late for you too.
The company you should contact to help you diversify into physical gold.
is Birch Gold, a company where Debbie and I buy our gold from.
Birch Gold specializes in helping you convert an existing IRA of 401k into a tax-sheltered IRA in physical gold.
And hey, you don't pay any money out of pocket.
Just listen to this five-star review, quote, knowledgeable, helpful.
Non-pressure.
Hey, that's what you get with Birch Gold and that's why I've endorsed them for so long.
Get your free information kit on gold by texting the word Dinesh to the number 989898. There's no obligation here, just useful information.
With an A-plus rating from the Better Business Bureau, countless five-star reviews, Birch Gold is the place to be.
Text Dinesh to 989898. Let the experts at Birch Gold help you secure your future today with gold.
Guys, I'm delighted to welcome back to the podcast John Pierce.
He's a trial lawyer.
He's founder and managing partner of John Pierce Law.
He's also the founder of the National Constitutional Law Union.
You can follow him on X at CaliKid, C-A-L-I-K-I-D-J-M-P, the website nclu.org or just johnpiercelaw.com.
John, welcome.
Thank you for joining me.
There's a lot of legal stuff going on.
I want to ask you about a couple of things.
But let me start by just getting your take on the big Trump speech last night.
Do you think it was the home run that people are making it out to be?
And how do you think it made Trump look vis-a-vis the Democrats?
Yeah, thank you very much for having me back on, Dinesh.
I think it was just a glorious night for America.
I think it was a home run by President Trump.
I think it was a relentlessly American and a relentlessly optimistic speech that was quintessentially forward-looking the way that Americans just fundamentally are.
I think there were so many just great...
Heartfelt moments last night, including the very touching commemoration of folks who had passed away tragically as a result of some of the open border policies.
That young man, that young 13-year-old who has brain cancer and was induced into the Secret Service on the spot, the West Point application that was granted.
And that all goes to just how...
Really distasteful the Democratic Party has become, at least in terms of their elected officials, for those folks in that chamber to not rise, to not applaud, to not pay any honor to mothers of young women who are viciously murdered by illegal aliens who are in this country because of the very policies that those folks support is just beyond the pale.
And I think that every...
You know, decent American of every political stripe and whatnot, must have been very disappointed and ashamed of the way that those Democratic Congress folks acted last night.
John, why do you think they acted that way?
I say that because generally I have, and I think you do too, a certain grudging respect for how cunning and shrewd these characters are.
And so the typical formula in the State of the Union is that if you don't agree with the president, which they don't, to sort of sit down and be very sullen while he's talking about policies.
But on the other hand, when he does these emotional moments, particularly pays tribute to kids and the kid you referred to, you know, this black kid, obviously he's got some issues coming out of his cancer.
He was overwhelmed at the idea of becoming a Secret Service agent.
It was an emotional moment, even for me, who doesn't normally get emotional in these kinds of things.
And for the Democrats to sit stone-faced, cold, no applause, no standing up, I mean, it looked bad.
And my question is, do you think that this is just an extension of like complete Trump derangement syndrome?
You know, I think that that's obviously a part of it.
but I think it must go beyond that at this point.
I think that the Democratic Party has become so completely captured by the very far left, the very far radical left, that they are...
They're terrified to take any stance that would suggest that they're not in complete alignment with the far-left orthodoxy.
And so, you know, from the women's sports situation, which they, you know, the night before, they refused to protect women's sports, and then, you know, just on and on and on.
I think that they are, I think they're terrified across the, you know, the...
I think it's become a fundamentally anti-American party.
I think at this point, I don't think anybody can watch what happened last night and conclude that...
There's any part of the Democratic Party that's in power that loves this country.
I mean, President Trump went on and on and on about things that are not controversial.
I mean, sealing the border, getting rid of waste, fraud, and abuse, protecting women's sports.
I mean, these are not controversial things.
The fact that a president has to stand there and say that there are two genders in this country, and Democrats can't even acknowledge that, it's just a testament.
It's a sad testament to how far they've gone.
on.
And I think they are in real danger at this point to becoming politically irrelevant, potentially, if they don't change course the way that the Whigs did in the Civil War period.
One of the memorable lines, there were several, but one of them for me was Trump's line, How'd that work out?
How's that working out for you?
A reference, of course, to the unrelenting, not just the two impeachments, but then the criminalization of political differences, the 90-plus charges that were dropped on Trump.
And I must say that when all of that happened, it looked virtually certain that some of it would stick.
That they would, you know, if you don't get him with this part of this shotgun blast, we'll get him with one of the other pellets is bound to hit him.
There are just too many volleys in the air for him to get away with it.
My question to you is, how did he get away with it?
And second of all, do you agree that this was a very telling moment, in a sense, conveying to the Democrats that this guy is back with a vengeance?
Yeah, I think that, you know, the most important reason, the most salient reason that President Trump got back into office was the outright brazen, complete weaponization of the judicial system against conservatives, against President Trump, against people like yourself.
You know, and I have been fighting ferociously against this for the past seven or eight years from the Russia Hugs representing George Papadopoulos and Carter Page to representing Mayor Giuliani and Tulsi Gabbard, Kyle Rittenhouse, 50 January 6th defendants or more, etc.
And, you know, because I was right in the middle of it, I mean, I knew how bad it was.
And I knew that if they kept going, and if we kept fighting, and by fighting, if we exposed just how bad and un-American and dangerous this was, that the American people would turn against that.
I mean, the American people are not stupid, and people in the middle in this country are well aware that You know, it might be turned against one side of the political spectrum right now, but if you allow that to stand, it will be turned right around on them, you know, tomorrow.
And, you know, I think that when President Trump was arrested the first time, I celebrated because I really felt at that point that they had...
I thought it was a bridge too far.
You know, you hear about World War II when Winston Churchill heard about Pearl Harbor, and he, of course, didn't like that the lives had been lost, but he actually celebrated because he knew the Americans would come into the war, and he knew that eventually the Japanese would be ground into powder, I think he said.
And they just went way, way, way overboard.
They couldn't help themselves, and I think that is the main reason that he...
I think the January 6th prosecutions against all those regular Americans and then the way that they tried to go after President Trump for January 6th was the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back.
I mean, I think this is a very important point you're making, John, because, you know, the dominance of the media by the left, I think that when the January 6th cases were being prosecuted one by one, Against some of these helpless, defenseless, without resources, families.
It was very worrisome because the insurrection narrative had been broadly constructed and disseminated by the media.
The media on the right did not seem big enough so that even though we might have all the best arguments, all the best information, the point is...
How do we get it out?
How do we get past this thick fog being put out by the mainstream media?
But I think what you're saying is, guess what?
Once they got Trump with a mugshot, once they took on Trump himself, there was no way to stop this from getting out.
And there was no way to prevent the ordinary American from going, wait a minute, something really funny is going on here.
When the leader of the opposition party is being hit, not with one, not with two, but 90 plus criminal charges in a clear, obvious attempt to lock him away so he can't run again and he can't win again.
That's right.
I mean, it took a couple to a few years to fight this narrative in the courts for it to start.
To be able to turn around.
I'm sure you remember, you know, hardly any Republicans or conservatives wanted to touch this issue even for the first couple years after January 6th.
But I think the key was, is that you had, and this was really my kind of strategic approach to this, was, you know, I worked very hard to gather together as many January 6th defendants who are willing to fight, who are willing to say, I'm not going to roll over.
I'm not going to just plead guilty.
I'm not going to take the easy way out and just take, you know, this misdemeanor plea deal.
I'm going to fight in these courts and I'm going to force the United States government to continue to terrorize me and my family.
And I'm going to sacrifice that so that the American people can see what has happened to our federal criminal justice system.
And I think that, honestly, is one of the things that led President Trump to start being very vocal about it.
And I think that just kind of then fed into what you just described in terms of how much attention it got when they went after President Trump for it.
I mean, that's an aspect of this story, the bravery of those defendants to take that on.
That I'm very glad you acknowledged.
There have been some reports that not all the January 6th defendants are out.
They've supposedly all been pardoned, but at least we read that some of them are still locked up.
Is that true?
What's going on?
Why isn't everybody out on the street?
Yeah, I think, you know, it's been getting better.
Over the past couple weeks, I mean, you've had, so, at first, I think you had maybe 11 or 12 folks who were still detained for a period of a few weeks, and then, you know, folks, I mean, many folks, including, you know, I was working behind the scenes, but you had, you know, plenty of folks working on this, kind of chipped away and chipped away and just kept working and, you know, got several of those folks out.
I think at this point, there may be five or six that are still detained.
I mean, one of the issues that you had is...
You know, you had January 6th defendants who were raided, and in the course of those raids, they might have been hit with some trumped up, no pun intended, trumped up weapons charges based on a January 6th search.
Right?
And so, fortunately, what started to happen in the last couple weeks is that the BOP and the U.S. attorneys have started to take the position that those things are also covered by the January 6th pardons, essentially because they're fruit of the poisonous tree, for lack of a better way to put it.
It's kind of a rough analogy.
But, you know, that's gotten a couple people out.
I think the remaining people that are in there, you know, largely speaking, it's a result of...
There being some unrelated charges that are still at play.
But each case is different.
And my view certainly is that unless there's some very, very compelling reason that's unrelated to January 6th, all those folks need to be released quickly.
But yeah, there are some real good advocates in the January 6th community who I know are working on it relentlessly.
So I'm sure it'll be worked out pretty quickly.
John, since I have you, let me ask you about this.
It concerns a case where a federal district court judge, a lower-level judge, basically orders the Trump administration to release $2 billion, roughly, of taxpayer money.
In a foreign aid program, I believe that the rationale roughly went something like this.
There were contracts to pay this money that were prior to Trump's executive order.
Therefore, Trump's executive order doesn't have the power to stop this pre-existing contract.
Now, Trump appeals to the Supreme Court, and in a pretty close decision, but a decision in which Amy Coney Barrett, for one, goes the other way, Kavanaugh dissenting.
And Kavanaugh goes, what am I seeing?
I'm basically seeing the absurd scenario where a local district court judge can freeze the action, the executive action of the President of the United States, not only nationwide, but on the global stage.
And hey, is the majority of the Supreme Court willing to go along with this?
Is this decision as bad as it seems on the face of it?
What do you make of it?
Yeah, and I have to say, I haven't read the full opinion, but I do understand the gist of it, and I think it is a very problematic decision.
You have real separation of powers issues that come into play here as between the president's total power over the executive under Article 2, in which he is the single human being in which the executive power is vested, and then the Article 3 courts.
It's very challenging to see that a system can work where you can have individual federal district court judges in any place.
Around the country and even the most liberal jurisdictions that can be shot for, almost forum shot for by a plaintiff.
And they can issue essentially a nationwide injunction that can affect billions of dollars or policy across the entire nation.
I think there's a real problem with these kind of...
Sweeping orders by individual federal district court judges.
Now, in this particular case, my understanding, and again, I haven't read the full opinion, but I believe...
That, you know, the ruling was on a temporary restraining order.
And, you know, the preliminary injunction hearing, I believe, is tomorrow or it's coming right up.
And at that point, the Trump administration can appeal again and would only need four justices in order to hear, you know, the appeal on the preliminary injunction ruling.
So I don't think this is over yet.
But I think the courts need to be...
The courts need to be very, very mindful of not overstepping their bounds into Article 2. As we all know, the sole power that the courts rely on with respect to their constitutional prerogatives is the force of their reasoning and therefore the legitimacy.
That the other branches in the American public give it.
And so it's just exceedingly important that they be very careful about impeding on the core powers of the other two branches.
This is not a ruling on the merits.
The court isn't saying, hey, this is a wise or unwise deployment of funds.
The court isn't even saying that Trump doesn't have the right to stop this.
It's a procedural issue related to the temporary restraining order.
And the TRO, the temporary restraining order, is valid for a small number of days.
So I think the court saw that this is, guess what, this is kind of coming to an end like in a few days.
Why don't we let the process play out at the judicial level?
And then, as you said, Trump can appeal the injunction or whatever is ultimately granted by the federal court.
Guys, I've been talking to John Pierce, founder, managing partner of John Pierce Law, but also founder of the National Constitutional Law Union, nclu.org.
John Pierce is at johnpiercelaw.com.
Hey, John, thank you very much for joining me.
Thank you so much, Tanesh.
Numbers don't lie.
The impact that Balance of Nature makes every single day is astounding.
You can see the numbers for yourself on their website at balanceofnature.com.
Listen to a few stats concerning Balance of Nature's worldwide success.
More than a thousand success stories reported each month.
Wow.
Hundreds of thousands of customers worldwide.
Millions of orders delivered each year.
And billions, yes, billions of these.
These are fruits and veggies in a capsule.
Fruit and veggie supplements consumed by people who have decided to start living better.
There's only one number missing here and that's...
You.
Do what I did.
Add yourself to these numbers.
Start taking Balance of Nature's whole food supplements like so many others around the world.
And here's another number that should get your attention.
35%.
Use my discount code, AMERICA, to get 35% off plus free shipping and a money-back guarantee.
Call 800-246-8751.
That's again...
800-246-8751 or go to balanceofnature.com.
When you use discount code America, you get 35% off plus free shipping.
You've probably heard by now, but if you haven't, MyPillow is having its first ever mega sale.
It's a sale on overstock, clearance, also on brand new products.
For example, you can save over 50%.
On this season's flannel sheets, the queen size just $59.98.
The king's only $69.98.
These sell out fast every year.
Be sure to order now.
You can save 30% on the brand new MyCrosses.
They're designed in the likeness of the one Mike Lindell has worn every day for over 20 years.
They come in men's and women's styles.
They're made right here in the USA. Get the 2025 six-piece MyTowel sets just $29.98.
The initial quantities are low, so act now.
And before I forget, the best-selling standard MyPillow, Take advantage of the first ever mega sale.
Call 800-876-0227.
Again, 800-876-0227 or go to mypillow.com.
Make sure to use the promo code.
It's D-I-N-E-S-H Dinesh.
And finally, remember the $75 limit.
You have to pay more than $75 to get free shipping.
Well, Mike Lindell tells me that ship has sailed right now for a limited time.
It's even better.
Every order ships free.
We are now coming toward the, well, close to the end of The Big Lie.
And the relevance of this book is that it exposes the fascism on the left and the fascism of the left.
Let's remember the subtitle of this book is Exposing the Nazi Roots of the American Left.
I mean, it's a very provocative title.
And I struggled with it a little bit because I thought, should I say exposing the fascism?
But as you've seen through the trajectory of this story, this narrative, we see connections not merely between the left and the Democratic Party and fascism, but also with Nazism.
The connection with eugenics, the role of the Nazis in framing the Nuremberg laws along the model of the laws in the democratic South.
So, Nazism here is not an exaggerated connection at all.
Let me pick up where I left off with George Soros, complete the discussion of Soros, and then move into the final chapter of the book.
When I left off with Soros, I was talking about Soros' remarkable statement that he didn't really feel any anxiety, compunction, qualms, guilt over helping his caretaker.
He didn't confiscate the property of Jews.
He didn't feel any guilt about seeing the Jews dispatched to the gas chambers.
In fact, if anything, he felt a sense of intellectual superiority over those people, like, you know what, they didn't read the tea leaves and I did.
So apparently Soros thinks this is what set him up to really understand markets, to evaluate risk.
And to take the appropriate measures beforehand to avoid a catastrophe.
But the thing that Soros says that I want to stress is the idea that he didn't feel bad because it would have happened anyway.
By the way, not anyways.
As some people say, it would happen anyways.
No, it would have happened anyway.
Where have we heard this before?
Where have I heard this before?
As it turns out, I have heard it before.
It is, I want to call it, the Mengele defense.
You remember Joseph Mengele?
Mengele was basically the butcher of Auschwitz.
Many people see him as a kind of psychotic doctor who performed extremely Hideous experiments on twins, on women, on men also, all supposedly in the name of science.
Well, as it turns out, Joseph Mengele was, in later life, confronted by his son Rolf, who said, in effect, Dad, like, how could you do it?
And Mengele said, well, I'm not responsible.
Why not?
Because, well, we're about to hear Mengele's defense, and you will see that it directly parallels the Soros defense.
Basically, what Mengele said was, why should I feel responsible?
These people were already going to die anyway.
In other words, they were marked out for death.
Even if I never showed up at Auschwitz, would they have lived?
Would the Nazis have spared them?
No.
So Mengele's point is, since they are here anyway, since they're going to die, I'm just going to use them as objects for the benefit of science.
I'm going to slaughter them, you might say, or put them on the chopping block in the name of progress.
How interesting, isn't it?
This is the progressive aspect of Mengele.
This is why Mengele can rightly be called, at least in the modern sense, a progressive.
And we come back to Soros now.
In a profile of Soros in The New Yorker, the writer Jane Mayer said that Soros once said that 1944, this is, by the way, the year that Hitler sent 500,000 Jews to extermination camps.
He says it was the happiest year of my life.
What a strange statement.
Even if things were going well for him, what a thing to say.
And apparently the reason he says that is that's the year that Soros' father gave him false identity papers.
And evidently, by the way, Soros' father did that for some other Jewish families as well, but he charged the money for those papers.
So he made a profit.
On the fate of his fellow Jews.
And Soros says this, I was lucky to have a father who understood that this was not normalcy.
And if you go by the normal rules, you're going to die.
Many Jews did not take evasive action.
What I learned during the war is that sometimes you can lose everything, even your life, by not taking risks.
So again, Soros is drawing a kind of commercial lesson from this experience.
And he's also kind of evading the moral issue.
This is the amoralism of the Soros family.
Because think about it.
He's saying it wasn't a normal time.
And my point is, if it wasn't a normal time, then it's not normal to charge your fellow Jews money to help them get out of there.
If they want identity papers, why don't you make the identity papers available to as many families as you can?
Because this is not really a time to be thinking about making money.
But Soros doesn't see it that way.
He sees it that we took advantage of the situation.
They were desperately in need.
We supplied the need.
And so we had every right to do it.
I'm happy.
And again...
There's a finger of blame pointed at the other Jews who are not as farsighted as his dad.
So, this base amoralism, as I've called it, is common to Soros.
It's common to Marcuse.
It's common to Heidegger.
All these men we see had a pretty intimate relationship.
With Nazism, at least at some point in their life.
And I would argue that their outlook, in fact, they say this, Soros says this, was shaped in response to it.
And so the leftist movement that was philosophically indebted to Heidegger, that was very genuinely shaped and influenced by Marcuse, and that is now...
Highly dependent upon the largesse of Soros.
Soros is bankrolling pretty much many of the key organs of the American left.
So you see the Nazi strain here seeping into the American left philosophically, tactically, and of course financially.
And so we are the recipients.
We are at the target end.
We are the victims of this Nazi demon possession.
In a way, you could say that fascism drove these men crazy, and now they are trying to make us crazy.
And that's my conclusion here.
This is a horrid trio, and if we look at their influence over the years, it has been immense.
They have contributed to the destruction of the Western University, not just in Europe, but in America.
They have contributed to the shameless leftist propaganda of the media.
And finally, they have inspired, if not bankrolled, the brown shirt tactics that we see from the left, Antifa, BLM, all this street thuggery.
And then, of course, the transportation of the street thuggery into the government under Biden and Harris, where the government itself is mobilized like a gang of thugs, thugs with badges, as I sometimes say, against their enemies.
I might be able to close this book out this weekend, perhaps even tomorrow, but I'll just begin with the opening of the final chapter, which is called De-Nazification.
And this chapter builds on an opening quotation from Winston Churchill that is applicable to our situation in multiple ways.
This is not the end, says Churchill.
This is in a speech on November 10, 1942. It's not even the beginning of the end, but it is perhaps the end of the beginning.
Beautiful rhetorical construction here.
I believe this statement is made after the evacuation from Dunkirk.
The British troops survived.
It was a close one.
And people ask Church, are you ready to declare victory?
And he's like, no, it's not the end.
It's not even the beginning of the end, but maybe the end of the beginning.
I think we can say this about Trump, that after this great speech, after the rapid actions of the past 45 days, We are not approaching the end.
The left is far from on its back.
It's far from decimated.
It continues to have a lot of power, legislative power.
It doesn't have too much executive power, although it does at the state level.
But it has enormous institutional power.
It continues to dominate the media and academia and the entertainment world.
So we should not underestimate its continuing influence in our society.
And this chapter, as I develop it on denazification, is how do we root out the baleful influence of this left?
If you looked at the expressions on the faces of the key Democrats.
Just the expressions of witch-like hate, of almost like satanic obsession.
In some cases, they couldn't stand it.
They left the room.
And if you saw that and you tried to make moral sense of it, I think this book will have been helpful to you in showing you who these people are, what their roots are, what their moral, or maybe amoral is a better word, ancestry is.
This ancestry, this perverse ideology, this fascism and Nazism of the left is with us today.
That's going to be a point I develop in this chapter, and it's going to take a lot to completely root it out.
▲
Export Selection