Dinesh D'Souza - HEART OF DARKNESS Dinesh D’Souza Podcast Ep1163

All Episodes

Previous Next

Sept. 8, 2025 - Dinesh D'Souza

57:57

HEART OF DARKNESS Dinesh D’Souza Podcast Ep1163

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Coming up, um a horrific murder of a young woman on a train in North Carolina, and I'll spell out the larger significance of um this um incident.
	I believe there's a reason that goes beyond Trump uh trolling for Trump renaming the Department of Defense as the Department of War.
	I'll tell you what that is.
	And writer and media host John Stubbins joins me.
	We're gonna talk about the misdoings of Senator Adam Schiff.
	Hey, if you're watching on YouTube, XR Rumble, listening on Apple or Spotify, please subscribe to my channel, hit the subscribe, the follow the notifications button.
	I'd really appreciate it.
	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.
	Debbie and I are going to Israel in a few days.
	We're actually going for the opening, the unveiling of the pilgrimage road in the city of David.
	This is a big event in Jerusalem.
	I think the prime minister is going to be there many times.
	Many other dignitaries and luminaries.
	I don't know who's coming from America, probably certainly Mike Huckabee, the US ambassador, but maybe others.
	And we're delighted and honored to be part of this.
	We've been supporters of this biblical archaeology project at the at the city of David.
	That's why we're invited.
	And then Debbie says this morning, she goes, guess what?
	There was a terrorist attack in Jerusalem.
	And it was launched, interestingly, not from people in Gaza, which is under Hamas or has been under Hamas, but it came from people, terrorists, from the West Bank.
	Now, the West Bank is Judea and Samaria.
	So it's called the West Bank.
	It was the West Bank of the Jordan River.
	And so this kind of riles the waters up a little bit in the immediate...
	Um leading up to our our trip.
	Now I'm here all this week.
	The podcast will be normal this week, but next week Danielle D'Souza Gill, my daughter, is gonna sit in for me while we are in Israel.
	Then I come back the middle of the week.
	Uh and uh and while we're there, we're also gonna connect with a bunch of people uh in Israel about the new film.
	So we're taking advantage of being there to do that.
	And um because I want the um there are a number of Israeli political figures and media guys and influencers.
	I want them to be aware that we are stepping in a big way into this uh debate.
	because all the issues that are coming from the left and from the right, colonialism from the left, and who are the Jews, and are the Jews of today the same Jews that are somehow descended from, or are there some other real Jews, and the Jews of Jerusalem now are like fake Jews who slipped in with the Yarmulke and pretended to be Jews.
	Um I mean, i it seems incredible we're having this debate, but it is the debate.
	This is um, these are the questions being raised uh by well, people like Steve Bannon, Tucker Carlson, others, and these are frontally dealt with in the film.
	The film doesn't like um get into sparring, uh, but what it does is it rises above the kind of pettiness of the current debate, and it it shines a bright light on all of this in a very, I think, inspiring but powerful and intellectually convincing way.
	And I do want to mention that we have a graphic kind of graphic violence warning on the film, uh, and I mentioned that because there is on our side a kind of Nambi pambyism among some people.
	Sudden, there's like Nambi Pambi Christians, there's some Nambi Pambi Republicans, they're like, I don't want to see any violence, Dinesh.
	Why did you why did you show October 7th?
	Well, the reason I show October 7th is because you haven't seen it.
	No one has.
	Um, amazingly, um the Israeli government uh sort of downplayed the footage of October 7.
	Notice how little you've seen about what actually happened, even though it's all recorded and amazingly much of it recorded, not by Israel, not by the IDF, but by Hamas.
	Well, guess what?
	I have all that footage.
	Uh, and I'm not going to overdo it, but the opening scenes of the film, it's like you are there on October 7th in a way that has not been out there in public.
	I've never seen it anywhere else.
	Uh, and some of it is a little chilling, but it is done tastefully, it's done effectively, and is not too much of it, but there's just enough so that you understand this is what we're dealing with.
	It's kind of like saying if you're gonna make a film about World War II, you need to have the attack on Portal.
	Oh, I can't don't show me the attack on Pearl Harbor, Dinesh.
	I can't stay, uh I can't deal with that kind of stuff.
	No, you you actually need to uh because that is the necessary prelude to everything that came after that.
	Nothing else is understandable, at least in terms of the Eastern, the Pacific war with Japan, without beginning with the attack on Pearl Harbor.
	And that's basically what happened to Israel on October 7th.
	Now, look how disingenuous the media is.
	I'm looking at headlines in the Telegraph, the BBC News, the US Sky News.
	Um, I'm looking at multiple outlets.
	None of them say Palestinian, none of them say terrorists.
	I'm just going to read you a couple of headlines.
	Four people killed and several others injured after shooting attack in Jerusalem.
	Shooting attack.
	Doesn't say by whom.
	At least four killed in shooting in Jerusalem.
	And um at least five people shot dead and a dozen injured in Jerusalem.
	Israeli police say four people killed and several wounded in Jerusalem shooting.
	Police say perpetrators have been killed.
	Notice a very sly omission of terrorism of Palestinians.
	Uh and this is how the media functions, at least on this topic, and as we know, we know many others.
	Now, I want to talk about something.
	I want to bring things closer to home, and I want to talk about this just atrocious murder of this young woman, Irina Zarutska, 23-year-old, uh, originally from Ukraine, but in the United States.
	She recently moved here.
	She's traveling in Charlotte, North Carolina, gets into a light rail.
	She's sitting in her compartment.
	And look, in a normal society, she can read a newspaper, read a book, look at her phone.
	She doesn't have to have, quote, situational awareness.
	She doesn't have to be watching the exit.
	She doesn't have to be looking for how she can jump out the window or run to the door.
	And yet, what happens to her?
	She is wantonly, unnecessarily, and brutally murdered.
	Uh a black guy behind her just steps behind her and kills her.
	And it's on video.
	Now, the the video that's out on social media Doesn't really show it.
	In fact, it it sort of downplays it.
	You don't hear her muffled screams or helpless eyes rolling back.
	And this guy, as it turns out, is a repeat offender.
	He commits crimes, he gets arrested, he gets locked up, and then they decide to release him again and again and again, evidently 14 or 15 times.
	So this is a monster that is has been created by the Democrats, by liberalism, by a certain attitude of crime that says, guess what?
	You know what?
	We have him in here, let him back out.
	Let him do it again.
	We'll get him back in, we'll get him back out.
	Um, this should not happen in a normal civilized society, but it does happen.
	And when it does happen, the media typically ignores it.
	Liz Wheeler pulls up number of mentions in the New York Times of George Floyd, 5,897.
	Trayvon Martin, 1,190.
	Lots of mentions of Daniel Penny, Kilmar Garcia.
	Number of mentions of Irina Zarutska, zero.
	And this is fairly typical.
	No mention on any of the networks, no mention in most of the media.
	Now, belatedly, when the media seeing that this is a big social media story, they cover it, it's like Republicans pounce on the issue of crime.
	Republicans are making uh Irina a cause celeb.
	So the story is not that there's a story here.
	The story is that there's no story here, but the Republicans and the right wingers are making something out of nothing.
	So what if there was a crime on the light rail?
	Now, when I say so what, it's very important to realize that the reason this doesn't get coverage.
	I saw that you know, Piers Morgan puts out, why isn't the media covering this?
	Because look, as of I guess a day ago or a few hours ago, nothing on New York Times, nothing on CNN, nothing on the Washington Post, nothing in MSNBC, NPR, USA Today, Reuters, Axios, PBS, ABC News, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing.
	Now, why not?
	This is the point that uh Piers Morgan raises, why not?
	And my answer is this.
	It's it is because of the racial element of this.
	If Irina was white, she is white, and she was stabbed by a white guy, it would be covered.
	You would get news coverage.
	Um, if Irina was black, or if it was a black victim and a white perpetrator, headlines everywhere.
	Racial incident.
	This is a United States as a racist society.
	Look, this is a this is a symbolism of what it's like to be black in America, and it would be everywhere.
	In fact, we would know the names of the perpetrator and the victim pretty much the way we know names like Derek Chauvin and George Floyd.
	But the fact that it's a black thug doing this, a young black male, the standard profile, the stereotype fulfilled, uh uh basically choking and murdering a young white woman.
	Um, that's the taboo.
	And that's why it's like, let's pretend it never happened.
	There's no news here to see, guys, let's look elsewhere.
	This is the media's shared approach.
	And you would think again, in the competitive media, this would never work because obviously it's it's a big story.
	And if if the New York Times doesn't cover it, the Washington Post will.
	But these people are all holding hands in a kind of sick uh ring uh of racial repression, of racial cover-up of let's not try to uh let's not try to emphasize the reality in our society that young black males are very disproportionately likely to do these barbaric things.
	And also let's not throw light on the Soros DAs on the liberal judges, on the ta the system that is tolerant and winks and lets the criminals go.
	That's all the creation over the past really half century of the Democratic Party.
	But I think that this incident, because of its sheer shock value, its brutality, the moral clarity of it, and also the shameless cover-up that's going on on the part of the media, this may well be that kind of transforming incident that finally opens people's Eyes to what is really going on.
	Then another sign appeared in heaven.
	An enormous red dragon.
	Revelation 12.3 Hold on!
	Hold on!
	Once again, an armed attack in the Middle East.
	But this time it's different.
	October 7th was the devil's homage.
	It's very hard to believe what happened, even though I was there and seen with my own eyes and seeing them laughing and killing and having fun with it.
	Because if you don't open the door, they are going to kill you and are going to kill me, so please open the door.
	So who are the Jews?
	Who are the Palestinians?
	And whose land is it really?
	Could the fate of the world of humanity itself be somehow tied to this place?
	The nation of Israel is a resurrected nation.
	So what if there was gonna be a resurrection of another people, an enemy people of Israel?
	The Bible speaks about this whole war as a dragon representing the enemy, attacking a woman representing Israel.
	The civilian deaths on both sides represent victories on the part of the dragon.
	The mass did everything within their ability to maximize the civilian casualty.
	Came back to a land that was largely barren and empty, and we brought it back to life, and we're good to keep it.
	The devil hates the Jewish people because they represent the existence of God.
	Because without that Jewish foundation, there is no Christianity.
	If we're approaching the end of time, God will reveal himself more and more dramatically.
	speak back through the stones.
	The story that they've been telling is that Israel is a colonial project.
	The problem with that is the city of David.
	We are an inconvenient truth.
	Are you aware of any significant archaeological finding that contradicts the Bible?
	No.
	God's word stands firm.
	Earth to God.
	The dragon will not prevail.
	Earth to God.
	Your message here is become a dragon slave.
	That's it.
	Based on Jonathan Cahn's number one international bestseller, The Dragon's Prophecy.
	Earth to God.
	Come in God.
	President Trump has decided to rename the Department of Defense the Department of War.
	Now, at first glance, Debbie reads this to me.
	She goes, this guy is an amazing troll.
	And at first glance, it does appear like that's what Trump is doing.
	He's just rubbing it in.
	He's just doing it to annoy the left.
	He is giving a new name or actually more accurately an alternative name.
	It's not like it's somehow no longer the Department of Defense.
	It's just that it now has an alternative title, the Department of War.
	And by the way, the Defense Department used to be called the War Department.
	If you go back, watch documentaries of World War II and even earlier, the war department is announced.
	So the war department is not a new name.
	This is not a Trumpian innovation.
	This is a restoration.
	And uh, in some ways for Trump, it is part of making America great again.
	But why?
	Why is this relevant?
	Why is this important?
	Why did Trump spend an iota of time doing something like this?
	I want to try to answer that question, and I want to suggest that this is not merely about um just uh wordplay or trolling or any of that.
	Now, you probably have heard that the United States um blew up A um a drug boat uh that is uh was being um operated by the Venezuelans.
	This is all part of the Maduro operation.
	He's like the head narco trafficker of the country.
	Debbie and I talked about this uh on Friday, and uh there is a big democratic howl about this.
	Um here's Brian Krasenstein.
	Killing the citizens of another nation who are civilians without due process is called a war crime.
	And uh, you know, J.D. Vance is like, who cares what you want to call it?
	Uh this these are first of all, we're talking about the international scene.
	Well, what about international law?
	Well, let me pose another question about international law.
	What is it?
	What is international law?
	Who makes it?
	Uh, how do laws become somehow internationalized?
	Normally, laws derive their legitimacy from the consent of the governed, right?
	Let's go right back to the founding documents.
	Why are our laws legitimate?
	That's because the people have, through their elected representatives, consented to uh these laws.
	Well, who's consented to international law?
	Where is the legitimacy of that?
	Answer there is none.
	There's no comparable basis of legitimacy for international law.
	So the whole thing is a little bit of a sham.
	But the point I want to get at here is that for Trump, it's like you've got these these um drug traffickers, they are being sent by a foreign regime.
	They are doing almost incalculable damage in the country, and so kaboom.
	You don't need due process, due processes and is something that we deliver internally to our own citizens.
	These are not people operating under the U.S. Constitution.
	Thomas Jefferson didn't have to say, I'm about to go attack the Barbary pirates now.
	Who, what law book of international law should I should I should I consult to make sure that my actions are legal?
	Um we have allowed ourselves post-Vietnam to fall into this preposterous legalistic scheme.
	Trump, addressing the issue more broadly, said um yesterday or the day before, we could have won every war, but we really chose to be politically correct or woke.
	And a commentator uh says, yeah, Vietnam, a war famously lost because we were too woke.
	To which I reply, yes, it is.
	Why did we lose the Vietnam War?
	Well, one reason is that the Viet Cong, the communists, would come into South Korea, they would cause mayhem and havoc, they would launch attacks, and then they would run back across the DMZ.
	The DMZ was the demilitarized zone, and the U.S. couldn't pursue them.
	Why?
	International law.
	So, in other words, the US instructed its soldiers only to meet attacks on the South Korean side.
	And if the North Koreans just ran back, it's sort of like saying, I'm gonna come into your compound into your property and blow things up, and I'm gonna run across to my own property and you can't touch me there.
	That's how we fought the Vietnam War, and I would suggest that is why we lost.
	So what I'm getting at here is that something bigger is going on than a name change.
	The U.S. Defense Department has not really been a war department for a long time.
	I would suggest not really since World War II.
	Uh, even the Korean War was fought, as was the Vietnam War, under these sorts of bogus uh sort of marquee of Queensbury gentlemen's rules, obviously gentlemen's rules abided by by one side and not the not the other.
	So what Trump is basically saying is war is war.
	And uh if you want to meddle and mess with the United States, we're gonna have a war department to deal with you.
	Not a defense department.
	Defense department implies like, well, listen, we're not into war.
	You know, if you attack us first, we're gonna defend.
	You know, you have a sword, we have a shield.
	Where that's a defense department.
	A war department is you have a sword, we have a bigger sword.
	Uh, and we're actually just waiting for you.
	And quite frankly, if you start waving your sword along, we might actually attack you before you brandish your sword as you're getting ready to use it.
	So Trump is sounding the bugle, he's sounding the alarm.
	He's in a way refocusing the purpose of The defense department.
	And he's saying that its purpose is not, quote, defense.
	It is actually war and the making of war.
	So we're talking here about a change of policy direction, not just a change of nomenclature.
	Now, I think Rand Paul, whom I like, whom I respect, who actually has a lot of knowledge of foreign policy, but nevertheless, Rand Paul complains about this blowing up of this boat.
	And he goes, you know, he's he's a he's criticizing J.D. Vance and he goes, did he ever read to kill a mockingbird?
	So really what Rand Paul is getting at again.
	What about due process?
	These people are not even soldiers, they're civilians.
	Uh we can arrest them.
	We can try them, but we can't blow them up.
	Another way to put it is that this isn't even a matter for the defense department.
	It's a matter for the Justice Department.
	Pam Bondi should be like on the scene apprehending these people.
	So again, I think J.D. Vance's answer, and Trump's, is that no.
	Sending drug boats that are peddling narcotics, creating a cartel regime internationally, uh, and unloading these drugs in in terrifying quantities into the United States.
	That's an act of war.
	We're gonna deal with it as a war department.
	Trump was even asked after that in a question by a reporter, well, are you gonna attack the cartels in Venezuela?
	And he basically goes, you'll see.
	You're gonna find out if we are or not.
	So Trump is um Trump is not one to run away from this kind of question.
	Uh other leaders might go, well, I wouldn't, I'm not saying that it's Trump is just like, yeah, watch me.
	And uh, and in this sense, Trump is establishing his control over the situation and establishing his control over the executive agencies of his own government.
	Uh, this is something I don't think he had, uh, at least not sufficiently in the first term.
	You had rogue and runaway cabinet agencies.
	Now you don't.
	Now you have, it seems like the administration is operating under one team with one leader.
	Democrats are acting like that's Nazism, that's fascism.
	No, it isn't.
	It's actually called an efficiently operating executive branch.
	By the way, under FDR, it was the same for the Democrats.
	And FDR, although in many ways a really bad guy, he was a bad guy because his policies were bad.
	He was not a bad guy because he knew how to exercise executive power, or he knew how to make a deal, or he knew how to get the various agencies of the government to work cooperatively toward his ends.
	He was good at all those things.
	He was operationally good, even if the end in the end his policies were harmful with Trump.
	You have the opposite.
	His policies are really good.
	He's doing good things for the country, and so a more efficient executive branch in this case is a very good thing indeed.
	I'd like to take a moment to tell you about Freedom Chat.
	This is a next generation messaging app.
	It's designed for people who still believe privacy matters.
	The team just launched their alpha version available today on both Android and iPhone.
	I'd like you to download it right now.
	Unlike the so-called free apps that spy on you and sell your data, Freedom Chat was built with your privacy first.
	Your messages are end-to-end encrypted, they're not stored on any server, even screenshots are blocked.
	There's no tracking, no mining, no listening in, just private communication the way it should be.
	And Freedom Chat has no ties to big tech.
	It's built by people I trust, and you should too.
	I believe in it so much, I've created my own private channel inside Freedom Chat.
	It's at Dinesh D'Souza, which you can subscribe to.
	And there I'll share exclusive posts and content you won't find anywhere else.
	And the best part is no one can see what channels you follow, what posts you react to.
	It's your own secure curated feed.
	So if you're ready for a messenger that actually reflects your values and keeps your conversations private, head over to FreedomChat.com.
	That's freedomchat.com, where freedom still means something.
	You know, when I uh flip around a container and I can't recognize uh ingredients or pronounce it, I put it back.
	But but look at this.
	This is balance of nature, fruits, and veggies In a capsule, really easy to take.
	You're gonna find these containers on a shelf in my home.
	Why?
	Every ingredient is a fruit or veggie plucked from the soil.
	There are no binders, no additives, no artificial colors, no fillers, just whole fruits and veggies, gluten-free and vegan-friendly.
	These harvested ingredients are freeze-dried into a fine powder using an advanced vacuum coal process to better preserve nutritional value.
	I can say with total confidence, I'm getting 31 ingredients from fruits and veggies and nothing else.
	And if you don't like taking pills, no problem, consider opening the fruit and veggie supplements, mix the powder into a smoothie, sprinkle it over your food.
	But join me in taking balance of nature every day.
	You use my discount code, it's America.
	You'll get 35% off.
	Free shipping plus for a limited time, fiber and spice.
	This is the big bottle, but this is fiber and spice.
	But you gotta use my discount code America.
	Order online at balanceofnature.com.
	Use the discount code America.
	You get 35% off plus a free bottle of fiber and spice.
	That's balanceofnature.com.
	Guys, I'm delighted to uh welcome to the podcast John Stubbins.
	Uh he is an actor, he is a show host, a writer, a producer.
	He's also a former Air Force guy, and he has been doing some very important work in investigating and exposing none other than Senator Adam Schiff.
	Now you can follow John on X at John M. Stubbins, S-T-U-B-B-I-N-S.
	And uh the website is going to be Schiffexposed.com.
	So very easy to remember, and there's a lot of information on there beyond what we're going to talk about.
	But welcome, John.
	Thank you for thank you for joining me.
	Let me begin by just asking you, given your background as a as an actor, a producer, a writer.
	What made you interested in doing these uh kind of investigative examinations and in this case, of course, of Adam Schiff.
	Well, it's interesting.
	Uh 2020, I'll be real quick about this.
	Uh, I was at CPAC uh with my attorney, and um I was really starting to get involved more in politics.
	And it was interesting because David Padrush, who is Mark Levin's executive producer, uh, he invited me over to the uh Washington, DC Fox Bureau to come and talk with him uh about a couple projects at that time.
	I had both of Sidney Powell's books, Conviction Machine, and License to Lie.
	And we sat down and talked for about an hour about those projects, and then he asked me if I could stick around a little longer, and I said, sure.
	And that's when he threw me the curveball.
	Uh he knew that I was doing uh uh play by play on uh on Fox with baseball, and he said, You've got a great voice.
	We really could use you uh, you know, in this fight in the trenches, and he asked me to start my own show.
	It happened to be the same week that COVID began, but that's kind of how I got involved in starting my own show, and then from there starting to do investigative journalism just because I had so many people uh that were contacting my show that wanted me to dig deeper.
	And I said, you know what, if we're gonna do this, let's do it all the way.
	I mean, this I think is um is very refreshing to hear, John, because as you know, there's an awful lot of social media punditry where people kind of consume the media and then they riff off of that or they opine on it.
	And what you're saying is that you recognize the importance of like digging under the rocks and looking to see, in other words, excavating facts uh that are going to make a difference in shaping the debate.
	Um, um, as you know, there actually seems to have been multiple people, I can think of at least three who are somewhat ensnared in this mortgage fraud net, right?
	There's Lisa Cook at the Federal Reserve.
	Apparently, there are some similar accusations against Letitia James, which is delightfully ironic because she was trying to get Trump on Exactly this issue of you know inflating the value of his properties, so kind of a real estate scam, and it would be highly ironic if she was running one at the same time.
	Uh, I don't need you to address necessarily the details of the other cases other than Schiff, but it appears like for these Democrats, you've got this idea that, hey, I can be above the law because who's gonna go after me with the media on my side with a lot of sympathetic judges, uh Soros, DAs, who's gonna want to prosecute me?
	Yeah, that's a great question.
	And my answer to that, uh Dinesh, to all your viewers, would be it's high time that we make the change because the status quo isn't working.
	And if it means that we have to clean house, then so be it.
	If we're gonna keep this republic, that's what's required.
	We can't have one foot in the water over here and another foot in the water over there and expect this to work.
	It doesn't jive.
	It won't work.
	It's not compatible, it's not sustainable.
	And if we can't have people in the House and in the Senate obeying the law, then most Americans say, well, why should I obey the law?
	Yeah, you know, I I agree with that.
	In fact, I saw an article um, this was purporting to be, and I didn't read the article carefully, but it was essentially saying, well, you know, there are some people associated with Trump who have also done mortgage fraud.
	But the implication of the article was so why are you going after Lisa Cook and Adam Schiff?
	Whereas the way I look at it was guess what?
	We don't want to have one set of laws for elites where they are above the law and everybody else has to abide by the law.
	If people are cheating on mortgage applications and that becomes discovered, they should be held accountable for it.
	Now, if they've got some explanation that could, well, I was too busy, or that can be taken into account to see what reason there might be.
	But look, you take a woman like Lisa Cook, she's a banker, she is an economist.
	She certainly knows how to read a mortgage application.
	So when someone with a high degree of expertise is giving false information, you're not very likely to think, well, I didn't understand what I was signing.
	Uh it's certainly not applicable in the cases in her case, and and I don't think it's applicable in the case of Adam Schiff.
	No, well, it's not because uh and this is the point that I've been trying to make ever since Ed Martin received the case from the DOJ.
	Uh, you know, and we're thrilled about that, by the way.
	Uh it took a lot of hard work, four years of non-stop digging to get to this point.
	Uh, you know, the the referral, the criminal referral was made, and thank God that Ed Martin was assigned the case.
	But here's the problem.
	We're only talking about the mortgage fraud part of this.
	The facts are, through our investigation, is that it's not just mortgage fraud, it's it's election fraud, it's theft, it's perjury, it's homeowners insurance fraud.
	The list goes on.
	So there are other felonies attached to this particular investigation.
	All anybody's talking about, including President Trump right now, is just the mortgage fraud.
	I would love to just be able to have a cup of coffee with him and explain to him that we've got him and his wife, by the way, because she also falsified all of these documents, including the uh voter registration.
	Uh, they're all lies.
	He should not even be sitting in the U.S. Senate right now.
	He's very legally.
	Let's go into all this uh in a little more detail because I want to press you on it.
	Let's start with the mortgage fraud, because that's what people know about.
	As I understand it, and I've seen on social media this kind of mortgage application, and you're right, it's signed by Adam Schiff, and I think his wife is Eve Schiff, so you got two signatures on these documents.
	And as I understand it, you know, it all has to do with the fact that you have a primary residence and then you have a secondary residence.
	Now you get certain types of mortgage benefits, interest benefits, government benefits on your primary residence, but they don't apply to your secondary residents.
	And so what these people do very crookedly is they list more than one residence As primary, or they move it around in such a way that they can avail themselves of benefits on both sides, uh, so to speak.
	Isn't that uh to start off with, isn't that what Adam Schiff seems to have done here?
	Yes, he did that, but he did it in a calculated way, just like you were talking about Cook, the banker.
	Okay, same thing.
	They knew exactly what they were doing.
	And if you look at the evidence uh that's listed at Shifexposed.com, we've laid out all the evidence for the American people.
	I believe in 100% transparency for America to see what this guy did and his wife.
	And and yes, you can see how they uh shimmied, let's use that word, the documents to put it in their favor and get cash benefits off of those uh deals, right?
	So, yes, uh you hit the nail on the head.
	Exactly right, Denish.
	Exactly right.
	Now, John, what is the like I don't see, at least it's not obvious because I'm not familiar with the documents beyond what I just told you.
	What is the connection to you mentioned about election fraud?
	You mentioned about the fact that, gee, I don't even think this guy should be in office.
	What is the connection between the mortgage uh alleged shenanigans and the the issue of being in office?
	There really is none.
	It's a separate case.
	That's what I mean by another felony charge.
	And that's because as as him and his wife are findangling these mortgages, they also have to appear on paper as if they're trying to uh keep up with their voter registration, right?
	But they falsified those as well.
	So it's a completely separate felony, and that's my point.
	I see.
	So you're saying that this stuff is that the the mortgage business is the tip of the iceberg.
	Yes, sir.
	And what you're saying is that you're hopeful that the Trump administration will at the very least look more widely and and look at what's underneath the tip of the iceberg, because there's probably there might be more there.
	And and and you now on your website on the website, by the way, guys, is Shifexposed.com, and also mention John Stubbins' website, which is John Stubbins.com.
	Um, I think what I like about what you're saying is that you don't just tell us the conclusion, you provide the evidence for people to see for themselves so that they can kind of make up their own mind, right?
	If I go to Schiff Exposed, I'll be able to see these signatures, I'll be able to see what they did and when there's a timeline, that kind of thing.
	That's exactly right, Jadesh.
	I don't want to make anyone's mind up for them.
	We we we we you know, I had my my website guy build this second website for us, specifically for the kinds of criminal cases that we're going after.
	And this isn't the only one, by the way.
	Uh we can get into Act Blue and the Russia hoax and that another time, but I can just tell you this.
	That specific website is to give every American the opportunity to go in, they can they can watch the the news outlet shows and how we discuss it.
	They can look at all the evidence and and make the judgment for themselves.
	Yeah, I think that's fair.
	Yeah, that's that's as fair as it gets.
	That's as fair as it gets, and that's the right that's the right way to do it.
	This way, if somebody wants to dispute your evidence, they can produce their own, right?
	They can say, well, look, you you ignored this vital document that shows the opposite.
	So you're you're putting it out there and you're challenging people to take a good look for themselves.
	Guys, I've been talking to the one and only John Stubbins, uh, actor, uh writer, producer, his website, John Stubbins.com.
	But the website we've been highlighting here, and you should check it out, Shifexposed.com.
	John, thank you very much for coming on.
	Thank you, Dinesh.
	I hope to have uh be able to come back and talk to you about Act Blue and the Russia hoax.
	There's a lot going on with that that you might want to know.
	Let's uh let's keep an open window for that to happen uh in the future.
	Thank you, John.
	Love you, brother.
	God bless.
	Mike Lindell tells me a major retail chain canceled a massive order, leaving my pillow with an overstock of classic pillows.
	But hey, their loss is your gain for limited time.
	My pillows offering the entire classic collection at true wholesale prices, get a standard by pillow for just 1798.
	Upgrade to queen size, 2298, or king size, 2498.
	You can snag body pillows for 2998, versatile multi-use pillows for just 998.
	Plus, when your order is over 75, you get a hundred dollars in free digital gifts, no strings attached.
	That's right, premium pillows at unbeatable prices and bonus gifts to top it off.
	So don't wait.
	Call 800 876-0227.
	That's 800 876-0227 or go to my pillow.com.
	Don't forget to use the promo code D I N E S H Dinesh.
	Pick up all the deals, including the standard MyPillow for just 1798 while supplies last.
	With a new movie on the horizon, this is the time to check out my local channel to become an annual subscriber.
	I post a lot of good content, exclusive content there, content you won't find anywhere else.
	On locals, you get Dinesh Unchained, Dinesh uncensored.
	You can also interact with me directly.
	I do a live weekly QA on Tuesdays, 8 p.m.
	Eastern.
	We talk about all kinds of stuff.
	I've also got a movie page up on locals with a bunch of my earlier films, 2000 Mules, Police Date, Vindicating Trump, Trump Card, our only feature film, Infidel, starring Jim Cavizel, and coming next month, my new film, The Dragon's Prophecy.
	By the way, trailer is out there.
	If you haven't watched it, check it out.
	By the way, the website for that is The Dragons Prophecy Film.com.
	If you're an annual subscriber to locals, you can stream and watch all this movie content, including the new movie for free.
	It's included with your subscription.
	So check out the channel.
	Go to dinesh.locals.com.
	I'd love to have you along for this great ride.
	Again, it's dinesh.locals.com.
	I'm launching into a discussion of my book, Life After Death, The Evidence.
	By the way, available in paperback, very cool looking book with the light blue cover.
	And if you can, I suggest uh getting a copy.
	It's uh just order it from Amazon, Barnes and Noble.
	This way you can follow along and also do your own reading.
	I think if you hear me, I'm not reading the book in the sense I'm not giving you an audiobook version or something like that.
	I'm giving you interpretive snapshots from the book.
	You can get the gist of it by listening to me, but it's there's a little bit more detail, texture, density in the book itself.
	So I recommend it.
	And like I say, I this is a book one stands out among my books in its originality, and it covers material that I don't cover in any of my my other work.
	Alright, here we go.
	Let's dive in.
	The opening chapter is called Let's Stop Pretending.
	Now let's stop pretending about what?
	Well, let's stop pretending that death does not exist.
	Or let's start pretending that death is not a reality.
	Here is I begin with a quotation from the poet Andrew Marvel.
	This is from his poem called To His Choi Mistress.
	Kind of a naughty type of a poem, very clever, and of course, beautifully done.
	But here's the the line.
	But at my back I always hear Times Winged Chariot hurrying near.
	So this is the poet saying that right behind me, like in a little whisper or murmur, I can hear the chariot of time.
	Times winged.
	Winged mean means with wings, having wings, winged chariot hurrying near.
	And what he's getting at is that his time on Earth is limited.
	And Times Winged Chariot is like, hey, time to put you in here and take you away.
	And um, and Marvel uses that fact of death to implore his coy mistress.
	And we won't go into all that for now, but this is a poignant line about the inevitability of death.
	I start the book by talking about my dad uh passing away.
	This is now a good 25 years ago, not 25 years from when the book was written, but 25 years from now, the year 2000.
	And I was, of course, in America.
	I was, in fact, if I remember, I newly uh moved to California.
	I was no longer at AEI, but now at the Hoover Institute.
	That's kind of going about my normal life.
	And then I suddenly hear from my family, my mom, uh, that my dad is in the hospital and he's being given like shock treatment to keep him alive.
	So, in other words, his organs are like shutting down, but he needs to be like zapped in order to keep him alive.
	And guess what?
	A few hours later, he was dead.
	So my dad was uh a really good guy.
	He was my hero, and um, and even now, you know, it's quarter century later.
	Uh I'm in my 60s.
	Um my dad, I think was 66 when he died.
	Um, but the kind of shock of that has not fully abated for me.
	Now, later, in fact, much more recently, my mom uh passed away, uh, but she had been ailing for a little while.
	Hers was a little bit more expected.
	I was there with her uh a couple of months before her death.
	Uh she went into a coma, peacefully passed away.
	And in some ways, I think I adjusted better to that.
	Uh, of course, my mom was also well into her 80s, and so she had kind of lived her full life.
	Whereas for my dad, it was like, whoa, I, you know, I was going every couple of years to visit India, but think of it, since I came at the age of 17, I obviously had been had seen my parents not all that often since I was 17.
	And so I kind of felt like, whoa, now I won't see my dad ever again.
	And in some ways, I have missed out on a lot of life with him.
	And I always thought that there was like more to come, but that's the illusion.
	I was in a certain type of pretence or denial about the fact that guess what?
	You know, people don't always have the best health.
	My dad was a kidney patient, he was on dialysis, and that of course accelerated, even though he didn't die of that, it accelerated his his death.
	Now, um, I say that these kinds of experiences, and I mentioned a couple of others, but I won't go into them here.
	I say these experiences have brought to center stage for me the issue of what, if anything, comes after death.
	And that if anything is really important because I don't start off by taking for granted there's life after death.
	I say, well, we don't actually know.
	We start out, here we are, and we have an uncertainty about what is going to come later.
	I say, I've thought about this question for many years.
	I'm aware it's a big taboo, but I think it's time to confront it.
	Is death the end, or is there something more?
	This is the ultimate question.
	It's been the defining issue for entire cultures from the ancient Egyptians to the present.
	And I say, and let's recognize that there really isn't a more important question that we will face than this one.
	Why?
	Because in some ways, this question makes every other issue seem kind of trivial.
	Now, if you doubt that this is that I'm right about this, here is a little bit of a test.
	Go to a hospital, uh, particularly a trauma hospital, or even even an emergency room.
	Uh, or go to a uh go to a funeral, uh, or talk to a parent who has recently lost a child.
	You suddenly realize when you're there, um, and I've had this experience more than once, that the apparent normalcy of everyday life is a little bit of a sham.
	It's somewhat misleading.
	Why?
	Because death is the wrecking ball that like obliterates everything.
	Right?
	Death is the um death is the great overturner.
	Everything we've done, everything we're doing now, all our plans for the future.
	Suddenly these are totally And irrevocably destroyed when we die.
	And I say, this is not like new knowledge.
	We know this.
	We already know it.
	But only teenagers, and also I would say mental teenagers, which is kind of all of us, live in a state of temporary insanity, in which we believe ourselves to be insulated, and in the in the case of teenagers, immune from death.
	But you know what?
	As we get older, especially as we move beyond the midpoint of life, we're starting on the downhill slope, we begin to re acknowledge, even if only grudgingly and to ourselves, our mortality.
	Now here's a great line from the philosopher, one of my favorite philosophers, Schopenhauer.
	Our life is a loan received from death.
	And good enough as that is, it's not the full quotation.
	Here's the rest of it, with sleep as the daily interest on the loan.
	So think of that.
	What he's getting at is he's saying that sleep itself is a kind of um temporary death.
	It is when, very bizarrely, we who are conscious creatures, humans, we give up that consciousness for like eight hours every night and get it back in the morning.
	So that's the interest on the loan, according to Schopenhauer.
	Now, very oddly I found some of the people I've talked to about this, including some friends, claim that the issue of what comes after death is of no interest to them.
	So one of my good friends, and this is a guy who lives in San Francisco, he's an entrepreneur, pretty smart guy.
	And when I was telling him about this book, he's like, you know, I'll read it, Dinesh.
	He goes, but it's for me, it's I'm gonna try to read it to resolve an intellectual conundrum.
	You're really good at that.
	And he says, but you know, I said, Well, isn't this a topic that you've been concerned about or thought about?
	He goes, No.
	He goes, Why should I?
	He he's giving me the businessman's pragmatic angle.
	He goes, even if it were true, it would not affect my life in any way.
	Since I can't do anything about it, I may as well not worry about it.
	And then he goes on to say, well, I suppose I could really think about some more practical ways that we live on, like we live on through our children, we live on through memories, um, friends, we live on through like lasting works of art, maybe my company will outlast me, and so it will live on.
	And I'm saying to myself, this is all nonsense, which is that you know what, guess I yes, I would like to live in the memory of those whose lives I influence, my wife, my daughter, uh, my grandchildren.
	Um, here's a poem by George Elliott.
	She says that she wants to quote, join the choir invisible of those immortal dead who live again in minds made better by their presence.
	So she's saying, you know what?
	If I've lived a good life, I will positively be remembered by people, and it will be good for them, and it will also be good for me.
	And I'm thinking to myself, well, first of all, even if you're right, that life, that extended life through memories, is extremely brief.
	Uh, here's the proof of that.
	Most of us know, well, we know everything, or a lot of uh the lives of our parents.
	But how much do we know about our grandparents?
	A lot less.
	Uh only recently did I discover the middle name of one of my grandparents.
	I didn't even know it.
	And um, and what do we know about our great-grandparents?
	Mostly, typically, nothing at all.
	And that means that your memory, however rich and um powerful, is generally going to last at most two generations and not longer than that.
	So this shows right away the limitations of the whole, at least I'll be remembered in the future idea.
	Now, it may seem like a better prospect for immortality is to write books or produce art or have your name in the history books or have a college named after You or a museum or even a city.
	But I want to insist that these are bogus forms of immortality.
	In fact, they're not immortality at all, because you won't be around to enjoy any of them.
	The comedian Woody Allen was once asked what he thought about immortality through his work.
	And he goes, I don't want to achieve immortality through my work.
	I want to achieve immortality by not dying.
	I don't want to live on in the hearts of my countrymen.
	I want to live on in my apartment.
	So this is Woody Allen.
	In a way, getting to the heart of the matter.
	What he's doing is puncturing the delusion that somehow these alternative forms of immortality, valuable though they may be in their own right, but that they really constitute any form of quote life after death.
	I think realistically they don't.
	My interlocutor, my friend, who said that it didn't matter whether there's life after death or not.
	This is an attitude that I think is pretty widespread and yet kind of incomprehensible, at least to me.
	Because to me, this we aren't dealing here with intellectual puzzles or conundrums.
	We're dealing actually with a life and death issue.
	This is a matter of life and death.
	How can it make no difference if you are going to face annihilation, complete annihilation, or not?
	How can it make no difference if there is life after death or not?
	Let me just give one uh example of what I'm getting at or how I think about it.
	Let's say that you or I were to find out tomorrow that we have six months to live.
	That's it.
	How would our life change?
	Is it the case that we would just say, oh, well, I guess I got six more months, so you know, I'm gonna show up for my podcast every day.
	I'm going to uh, you know, go walking every morning to keep up my health.
	Uh, I'm going to uh, you know, make sure I stay off the alcohol, and I'm gonna I'm going to um no, uh most people, this I've seen this happen at least in to one or two uh people I know, it is a shock, and they begin to reevaluate all their priorities and they begin to rearrange their schedule and they suddenly do things.
	Now, people kind of know this.
	That's why people have so-called bucket lists.
	It's kind of like these are things I want to do, but the bucket list is a kind of unserious version of what I'm talking about.
	What I'm talking about is the clock is ticking, and the clock is ticking for all of us, of course, but it's ticking for you at a known pace.
	You know you have six months and not a day beyond that.
	I would submit that you would think about reorganizing your life in at least some way.
	Uh, and and just for today, I'll leave you with this thought.
	This applies at uh at both sides of the spectrum, and by that I mean I've given you an example about shortening your life.
	Well, let's lengthen it.
	Let's say that due to an amazing discovery of modern science tomorrow, you now discover that your life expectancy, which was previously 80, is now a hundred and sixty.
	In other words, your lifespan is completely doubled.
	Wouldn't that affect your life?
	Wouldn't that affect your plans?
	Wouldn't that affect how you see the world?
	Not just your retirement account, but your actual organization of your life, I would submit would start to change.
	Um, and uh and you would do it differently.
	So all of this is just a way of illustrating that we cannot be indifferent to the question of whether this life is the only life.
	So when we pick it up tomorrow, I'm gonna continue with this introduction, framing the issue and showing why denial is not a good option.

▲