Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Oct. 30, 2020 - Jim Fetzer

01:56:34

The Fetz Presents (29 October 2020): Deana Pollard-Sacks, legal expert / intellectual extraordinaire

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	This is Jim Fetzer, the conspiracy guy with Fetz Presents, where my special guest this
	evening, Dina Ann Pollard, now Dina Pollard Sachs, was born in Tacoma, Washington, earned
	law degrees from USC and UC Berkeley, and became a full-time law professor with the
	Thurgood Marshall School of Law in Houston.
	She's done extensive legal scholarship on a host of issues, including implicit racial bias, children's developmental psychology, the risks of corporal punishment, the intersection of the First Amendment and dangerous speech, and civil liability for behavior and sexual relationships Pretty fascinating stuff.
	In 2018, she was notified she ranks in the top 10% of all authors internationally on the Social Science Research Network, based on the number of downloads and usage of her scholarship, where she has begun writing a series of books on the godfathers of sex abuse, discussing Bill Cosby, Jeffrey Epstein, Harvey Weinstein, Dina, you're making quite the rounds.
	I'm really fascinated and fascinated by what you've been doing and its contemporary significance.
	Well, what's strange is, you know, most professors focus on one area of law, like constitutional law, and I just kept getting interested in different areas.
	So I kept, you know, gaining expertise in different areas.
	And ironically, a lot of those areas are starting to converge.
	It's just strange, you know, how Sex torts, for example, I wrote in 2007 in the Minnesota
	Law Review, and at that time it was just basically herpes transmission and things like
	that, and I argued for strict liability, and just sent me some of that on the behavioral
	economics and the economic analysis of law and how norms can be used to modify
	behavior and to shape legal policy And that's where I cite Cass Sunstein a lot because he's done a lot of work in that area.
	But it's weird, I've had all these different areas of interest and now a lot of them are sort of coming to the forefront.
	So it's a strange mix, but yet it kind of goes together now in a sense.
	Well, I'm just fascinated by the range of your interests.
	It's extremely interesting stuff, and of great contemporary significance.
	Yeah, it's followed my interests, you know, and just sort of, when I found something, that's the beauty of academic freedom, you know, you get to write about whatever you want.
	My areas have been torts and constitutional law in terms of teaching, mostly torts, but I've done a lot of writing on constitutional law.
	Because I like it so much, especially First Amendment law.
	So yeah, I just followed whatever.
	And corporal punishment has really nothing to do with either, although you can have constitutional claims resulting from corporal punishment in schools.
	And of course, you can have a tort claim against your own parents if they exceed, you know, what's reasonable in corporal punishment.
	So, but that was just an interest I had just just kind of out of the blue when I found out that other countries have banned child spanking, even in the home.
	Based on the IQ tests, largely, and the way that we know that can affect children's cognitive development and their overall IQ later in life.
	Spanking can make a difference to IQ?
	Oh, yeah.
	Tell me, tell me!
	Oh, yeah.
	Well, research out of various European countries, I think including Germany and various countries, have shown that kids who are spanked have significant cognitive depression.
	In the formative years, in the toddler years, in the baby years.
	I mean, some people spank really young, which is crazy.
	A one-year-old, a two-year-old, you know, they're not old enough to really understand.
	But it apparently depresses the child's ability to sort of think outside of the box or something.
	We don't even know, but what we do know is that it can affect little girls a little more than little boys in terms of depressing their overall cognitive function.
	But it can be significant.
	It can be a full standard deviation.
	Which is about 10 points on the Stanford-Binet scale, but one full standard deviation can be lost through corporal punishment.
	There's also lots of research showing that people who are corporally punished spanked a lot, have all sorts of problems with self-esteem, which makes sense.
	You're being hit a lot, you feel bad about yourself.
	They have much higher rates of alcoholism, drug abuse, and divorce.
	And they're less likely to finish college or graduate school.
	But now keep in mind, too, that the parents who spank a lot often are also involved with drugs, alcohol, not finishing school, and overall having less money and less education behind them.
	We know that as a fact.
	So the more educated a person is, the more Well, the wealthier person is, the less likely that person is to hit their children and certainly hit their children a lot.
	So there's confounding factors making it really hard to determine for sure what's causing what.
	But we do know from a bunch of studies that it can create a lower overall IQ because they've had some controlled studies and the hitting of a child, the hitting of a human being just isn't good for their learning.
	This is utterly fascinating, I would infer.
	It's because the spanking is that they're not conforming, and therefore they are feeling residual effects of a necessity to conform to avoid harm, and that that would have cognitive restraints that would attend thereto that might explain this reduction in IQ.
	I mean, that's utterly fascinating.
	Frankly, it never crossed my mind.
	Absolutely.
	And it's led a lot of countries, Israel, Latvia, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark.
	I mean, look at Germany.
	All these countries have said, you know, we're not going to allow parents to spank anymore.
	And mostly the sanctions are just social, which we're talking about today in terms of what's going on with Cass Sunstein.
	social sanctions having sometimes greater effects than legal sanctions.
	But yeah, those articles from 2002, 2003 that I published way back then are the ones getting
	so many hits all over the world.
	Because I get the data from SSRN.
	And these articles about what spanking does to children are the ones that are now the
	most read.
	And I think they're the ones that got me into that top 10%.
	But one of the funniest things I thought was in Sweden was the first country, and I think
	was 79 to ban parental spanking.
	And the way they got parents to understand that this was a new law is they put on milk cartons.
	Because the culture in Sweden was to put the milk carton in the middle of the table during meals.
	And so being on the carton like that, people would see the milk carton while they're eating and talk about it.
	And at first people were really upset about it.
	They did not like the government telling them what to do.
	But then they saw the outcome.
	10-15 years later, people were extremely in favor of the ban of focal punishment.
	I thought that was interesting.
	Dina, I want to ask you too about, you're talking about implicit racial bias.
	Now that sounds awfully closely related to the idea of systemic racism.
	Absolutely.
	I have personally been profoundly skeptical.
	I mean, it seems to me, you know, the most admired figures in our society, the most pampered, the most highly played, like football players, NBA, NFL, many of our actors, actresses, you know, these are all blacks.
	I mean, they're virtually regarded as role models, not to mention in the music industry, entertainment forever.
	And then we have had the election of our first black president, re-election.
	I have been inclined to think that racism is basically a figment of the past, notwithstanding the efforts to resurrect it by, you know, using Antifa and Black Lives Matter, pulling down statues, riots, looting and the like to try to exacerbate racial tensions, which is a political tactic To promote a certain strategy.
	I think it was thought it was going to gain support from the black community, but the blacks being generally socioeconomically in a lower income bracket actually are more dependent on the police for their well-being.
	That are more middle class and upper middle class, so they've been appalled by all this movement to defund the police, dismantle the police, and that's been a central theme of Antifa and Black Lives Matter.
	I would love to hear your reflections on all of this.
	Well, I think there is systemic racism and there is clearly A real problem with implicit bias, not just racial bias, but gender bias, sexual orientation bias, and national origin bias, and there's all sorts of biases.
	And we know this from a test called the Implicit Association Test.
	And what this test does, and I wrote about this as my thesis, my master's thesis at Berkeley, this test, this computer test you can get now by, I think it's called the Project Implicit Bias now.
	I think Harvard has control over it now.
	It was the Southern Poverty Law Center for a while.
	But in any event, this test can determine whether you have cognitive barriers to associating, let's say, women with the workplace or men with baby bottles and diapers and things like that.
	So what it does is it shows whether your mind is organized in such a way that it takes longer by milliseconds to associate terms that you don't think should go together.
	So, for example, the black-white implicit association test, what they ask you to do is you see a black face And you're supposed to associate it with positive terms and then negative terms.
	I'm just giving one example of many examples.
	And for a lot of people, when they attempt to associate a black name or a black face with things like beauty or flowers or peace, they have a slightly longer time lapse than when they attempt to connect a black name or black face with things Ideas such as violence, guns.
	Unemployment, things like that.
	And what that shows is that people have a natural, implicit, they don't know.
	In fact, if you try to manipulate the test, if you try to push the button, you know, faster or slower, you'll mess up the test.
	You have to go with your gut reaction as quickly as you can or you won't get a proper test result.
	And what's found is that most people do have more difficulty
	associating black names, black images with positive things, success, things like that, than with negative things.
	And the opposite is true of white faces and white names, like Betty or Charles or things like that.
	So there's no question for most people, there are implicit biases.
	I was a very rare bird.
	I did not have implicit bias against blacks or whites, but I did show a tendency to view women as homemakers.
	And knowing that it bothered me, there's things you can do to undo biases,
	And knowing that it bothered me, you know, and there's things you can do to undo biases,
	like having flashcards of a woman in a doctor's uniform or a woman in a police officer, a woman of power,
	like having flashcards of a woman in a doctor's uniform or a woman in a police officer, you know,
	a woman of power, and you can flashcards to kind of undo the implicit bias over time
	and you can go flashcards to kind of undo the implicit bias over time to keep going over and over
	to keep going over and over to sort of challenge that cognitive assumption and create images
	that are not consistent so that you'll start to sort of unravel those assumptions.
	But 10 years later, I took the test again, and I still had a little bit of a bias
	that associated women in the home with baby bottles, babies, you know, groceries and things like that,
	and men with briefcases and things like that.
	I just think it is ingrained with all my aunts and my mother and grandmother all being homemakers.
	And so I grew up with that, you know?
	But Dina, well, intellectually, you know, or morally and so forth, you know,
	you can view all these things as equal.
	Men could just as well be changing diapers and women, you know, in the office.
	In terms of the frequency of life with which those things happen,
	they're abnormal rather than normal, although obviously women in the workplace
	is becoming more and more common.
	But just to offer one illustration, overwhelmingly the greater percentage of crimes committed in the United States are committed by black people.
	I mean, I've gone through the statistics.
	I report on this all the time in relation to, you know, all the claims of racial injustice and all that.
	The fewest number of interracial killings, for example, is whites on blacks.
	Blacks kill whites more often than whites kill blacks.
	Whites kill whites about the same rate as Well look, statistically blacks killing blacks is overwhelming the predominant.
	So if you were just reflecting on historical frequency data, which of course is typically reported in the news, I would think there'd be a natural tendency to associate Blacks more frequently with crime, for example, than whites.
	I mean, that's just one illustration.
	Or women with, you know, family rate.
	But I don't see that as an implicit bias.
	I see that as rationally responding to the evidence.
	Well, but it's deeper than that.
	Because for one thing, you see a disproportionate number of blacks on television who are criminals in the shows, in the news.
	in handcuffs walking through the courtroom or whatever.
	And so that's gonna reinforce those implicit assumptions that blacks are associated with crime.
	Now you say, wait a minute, but they are associated with crime.
	Okay, well, yes, but now let's talk about why that is the fact,
	because I think there are reasons for that as well.
	And let me just start with the fact of the economic distinction between blacks as a whole and whites as a whole.
	Persons who are struggling financially often get desperate and they often, I would say are more likely to steal
	because they have needs.
	Now, that's only one piece of it.
	Another piece, I'm gonna relate back to an old study that I think is fascinating.
	And there was an interview-styled study, and it was a double-blind, and no one really knew what the researchers were looking at, right?
	So, I think you call it a double-blind, but anyway, the camera was on the interviewer, not the interviewees, and no one knew that.
	So, the interviewer is interviewing black and white candidates, and they're monitoring the interviewer's reaction to the candidates, and what they found, in a nutshell, is the interviewer would give Um, less time to respond to questions to the Black candidates, and would not make as much eye contact with the Black candidates.
	So, how do you think the Black candidates responded to that?
	Well, they didn't like it, and no one would.
	And so it's called behavioral confirmation, or the self-fulfilling prophecy, in that the black candidates got hostile.
	They didn't like how they were being treated.
	And so what happens is when black people get hostile, because people are treating them differently, and they feel it, the blacks feel it, the whites may not realize what they're doing.
	And the interviewers, I don't think knew what they were doing.
	They were uncomfortable, and that would account for the lack of eye contact, and the kind of rushing to the next question.
	Well, then they took those two interview styles that they found were quite different based on whether it was a black or white candidate, and they applied the black style to white candidates.
	And then, lo and behold, the white candidates responded with hostility as well.
	They didn't like it either.
	And so what happened was the interviewers didn't know what they were doing, but it could be quantified in terms of how they treated The black candidates versus the white candidates.
	And when it was applied to whites, they got hostile as well.
	So relating it back to the crime, when blacks are treated as if, you know, they're somehow hostile people, that's going to elicit hostility.
	Just like with an attractive woman who was treated like a bimbo.
	And it doesn't necessarily have to be a statement like you're a bimbo.
	It can just be rolling the eyes or looking away when they speak or whatever.
	And that female is going to have a reaction to that.
	And notice how one of the biggest stereotypes about attractive women is that they're not
	nice, that they're conceited.
	I always use the word bitchy.
	Okay.
	That's the word that's used.
	And it's in my second book, I talk about these terms that are assigned to attractive women, especially the femme fatale, the young, you know, beautiful models, actresses, things like that.
	And again, it's a self-fulfilling prophecy.
	These women, like black men, are treated, you know, in a certain way that they don't like, that no one would respond well to, but the people doing it, Who are treating these black individuals or women in this way.
	They don't know they're doing it.
	That's why it's called implicit bias.
	But it does affect the other person.
	That of course then reaffirms existing assumptions.
	So it's a terrible cycle that needs to be broken.
	Well, it's based upon certain presumptions about how these interactions ought properly to take place.
	And it seems to me you're suggesting that when it's a white interviewer of a black, that there's a departure from the way it ought to take place in a negative fashion.
	And that if, in fact, the same modes of, let's call them disrespect, are applied to whites, even if it's a white interviewer, you get the same deviation from what I would say is, you know, treating the candidate with respect, which is supposed to be a certain degree of empathy and concern and consideration.
	And respect, right, and respect.
	And I remember one time coming to Texas many years ago, and I met my husband, oh gosh, I guess 2004 or something like that, and I would go to events with him.
	And I'd be standing in a circle of lawyers, you know, four men and me, and we're in a complete circle, and they'd be talking about a case.
	I'd say, well, what case is that?
	And it was literally, they didn't hear me.
	They did not hear me.
	And I don't have a meek voice.
	I'm pretty, you know, You're being excluded from the conversation.
	But they weren't, I don't think they didn't change.
	They literally, I'd say, hey guys, what piece are you talking about?
	Who said that?
	And they, I don't think they heard me.
	I mean, they must have heard me.
	I was right there, but I don't think it registered because they weren't used to a female lawyer interacting with them.
	And that way, all the other men at this event, the wives were homemakers or whatever.
	And so I was the aberrational female who actually had, you know, law degrees that were better than theirs, but it didn't matter because I didn't fit their expectation of what a female would be talking about or whatnot.
	And I was shorter.
	Texas has a lot of tall men.
	What makes this purported, let's keep on the racial rather than the gender bias, systemic?
	Way taller than me at five, you know, five and a half, whatever it is.
	So it was a mix of things, but it startled me.
	I never saw that in LA.
	In all the universities, I never saw it.
	What makes this purported, let's keep on the racial rather than the gender bias,
	systemic?
	Well, because if you look at systems, health systems, legal systems,
	Even work environments, you'll see a pattern.
	And the patterns that emerge are startling.
	And it's very, very upsetting to find out what really goes on.
	I'll give you a couple examples.
	In the criminal justice system, we know that black convicts get harsher sentences.
	We know that juries are more likely to convict if the suspect is black, because again,
	those implicit biases are coming out in judgments.
	If the black suspect is agitated on the stand, maybe he's agitated because he doesn't like
	being accused of something.
	Look how Brett Kavanaugh reacted.
	People are like, oh, he doesn't have the temperament to be a justice.
	He's accused, I mean, he's accused of having a beer.
	Would that not upset you?
	I mean, he was accused of all sorts of things, as if having a beer is wrong, I'm saying.
	He was also accused of a sexual assault, but he said it never took place.
	Now, did he show some agitation?
	Yes, he did.
	So there's a good example of people just don't like being accused of things.
	And he claims he's innocent, and I don't know, but his reaction, boy, he sure seemed like Do you understand?
	So Blacks, when they're accused of something, they may show an agitation, hostility, or anger that is understandable if they're really innocent.
	But it's misinterpreted.
	It can be misinterpreted as, see, they're an angry guy.
	See, he's a hostile guy.
	You see the point?
	So that's one example.
	Another example is in health care.
	One more example.
	In health care, we know That when black men have issues that could require amputation or not, that doctors and hospitals around the country are much more likely to amputate a black man's leg than a white man's leg.
	So while gangrene or whatever may be treated aggressively with antibiotics and everything under the sun to save the leg of a white man, when black men come in, they're more likely to chop it off.
	Now notice, when you go out in society, How many black men are missing part of their leg?
	Because I didn't notice until I learned these.
	And I learned these statistics in writing a book with a bunch of professors from Harvard, University of Hawaii, and a couple other places called Implicit Racial Bias Across the Law.
	And this book, we each had a subject.
	Mine was torts.
	And I talked about how when something goes missing in the workplace, you know, and there's two new employees and one's white and one's black.
	People are like, oh man, people kind of have a natural assumption it's probably the black guy,
	and they don't even know they're doing it. But you understand, blacks go through things
	most of us don't go through on a certain level, and it is systemic because it is implicit,
	and we know that from implicit racial bias testing and also from statistics, the health care statistics.
	And you might say, well, they're at lesser hospitals, well, they're in poorer areas.
	Yes, that can be true, but it still, in my opinion, it still doesn't account for why blacks are given inferior healthcare, oftentimes, and it's almost like a two-tiered system of healthcare.
	And the amputation information just, it just was very upsetting for me.
	Would it be fair to say that everyone makes all kinds of subtle judgments about the relative worth of a person's activities?
	I hate to go into that.
	Obese individuals are treated terribly.
	No one will look them in the eye.
	And I learned that, too, in my research.
	Just because someone's overweight... Dina, Dina, Dina!
	More than half of the American population is obese.
	Well, but I'm talking about those who, like most people, the president, let's say, most people wouldn't call him fat.
	Okay.
	It's a derogatory term.
	He may be technically obese.
	I heard that in the news, but he doesn't look okay.
	I'm talking about people who are really, really like a hundred pounds overweight.
	No one will look at them.
	And they talk about that.
	No one will look them in the eye.
	And after I learned that, I tried to make a real conscious effort to look obese people in the eye and say, hello, because no one else does.
	And so the more you, and it starts as black and white.
	You know, Hispanics sometimes are... One of my friends is Hispanic, and he's very, very attractive Hispanic.
	He looks like he could be on the cover of GQ, and he's been called a womanizer, and all these kinds of things.
	I mean, the man has been married most of his life.
	He has had more than one wife, but I just have never seen him as a guy who plays the field.
	And yet, because of the way he looks, and because he looks Hispanic, You know, never mind Harvard Law School and everything else, no one thinks about that.
	He has been accused of things that are so unfair and I think that that's why.
	I think it's his Hispanic good looks and that is associated with machismo, you know, oversexed, you know, behaviors.
	But now let me just ask in terms of the context of events this year, is rioting and looting a way to deal with this, this what you're describing here as a form of systemic racism?
	I think it's counterproductive.
	I think that it reinforces images of black individuals who are hostile, committing crimes and whatnot.
	I think it's absolutely horrible.
	Black Lives Matter.
	has shifted. Originally it was just a movement to make people realize that blacks are shot
	while running away, oftentimes from crime scenes, and those blacks are sometimes completely innocent
	because they're so scared. Young men run because they're so scared and they get shot in the back.
	That's a real problem that hasn't been publicized sufficiently.
	So that, I think, was how it started.
	Now evolved into something that no one really recognizes anymore.
	Because, you know, it's like, it's like Martin Luther King versus Malcolm X, okay?
	Martin Luther King did not advocate what Malcolm X advocated, and yet somehow, and I'm kind of a fan of Martin Luther King, but I think it's always better to be peaceful.
	I think the minute you get into violence, you lose credibility.
	And so I think that, and of course, the news is publicized at a level where Just to illustrate the point you're making, in Philadelphia we just had a riot and they were going into Walmarts and Targets and they were wheeling out washing machines, taking big flat screen TVs.
	I mean, it was just help yourself and they were going from one store to another store.
	It was a massive operation of thievery.
	It was stealing.
	I mean, it was just blatant.
	The police were being held back by the Democrat mayor because somehow these Democrat mayors in Seattle, Portland, Chicago, New York, now Philadelphia, think somehow this is beneficial politically.
	I don't get it, Dina.
	It seems to me idiotic.
	I think the only nugget of possible truth there is that Black individuals have a hard time getting employment, oftentimes.
	They are disproportionately, you know, in troubled communities.
	There's a lot of Blacks in poverty.
	And so I think the idea is, I don't mean to joke at all about this, but it's almost like this idea that it's sort of a form of reparation.
	It's like, well, let them have some things because they've been I'll tell you, every time they pull one of these, it's 100,000 more votes for Donald Trump.
	I don't know.
	I'm telling you, I mean, this is not, I'm not speculating.
	I'm telling you, that's a powerful effect.
	This has been more damaging to the Democratic Party than anything that they've done the whole 2020.
	The support for Antifa, Black Lives Matter, having their virtual convention for four days to air and not once addressing urban violence, Dina?
	Frankly, I think they lost the election right there.
	Yeah, I suspect that Trump's going to win this election also.
	And I suspect—I'm not going to vote, by the way.
	I'm going to put that right on the record.
	I'm in Texas.
	I'm not sure that it really matters.
	But more importantly, I have had literally hundreds and hundreds of people ask me how I voted in the last election, including during the deposition, which had nothing to do with the election.
	And I just don't really want that.
	My family's divided.
	Really?
	Really?
	You've been grilled over who you voted for in 2016?
	Well, because I predicted he'd win, and I think people thought that that meant that I was supporting him.
	But when you know something, or when you think you know something, and I really felt like I knew, Um, it changes your perspective on everything.
	You sort of, you say, okay, well, this is what it's going to be, you know, and so you sort of resign yourself to this and you, and you don't have the same.
	Oh my God.
	I just was like, yeah, he's going to, he's going to win.
	And so I think that made people feel like, well, she's obviously supporting him.
	And I didn't, I, I've written my husband in for president more often than anyone else in the last 10 years or 15 years.
	So just FYI, I haven't been very happy with the candidates in general.
	So, and that's just my little personal form of rebellion.
	I voted for Bill Clinton twice.
	I voted for Barack Obama twice.
	It had a lot to do with the quality of the opposition, like Mitt Romney or John McCain.
	Give me a break.
	But when it came to Hillary Clinton, this is one of the most sadistic monsters on the face of earth.
	If anyone knows the history of Hillary Clinton and the Clinton crime family, I mean, it's appalling, Dina.
	I have a whole chapter called hashtag Clinton body count in my first book.
	And the reason why was because when Jeffrey Epstein was supposedly committed suicide,
	supposedly with Maria.
	Yeah, we think he's on an island somewhere enjoying, you know, Mai Tai's.
	I suspect he may not be dead at all.
	That's my belief as well.
	I'm just not convinced by the photos or anything else and the lack of-
	Right, right, some of which were clearly faked.
	Plus the 60 minutes ridiculous coverage of this, or it was a six or eight months after the fact
	and producing all sorts of photos that had never been seen and facts that had never been.
	In fact, the facts they disclosed were specifically denied by all the news stations
	back in August of 2019.
	In other words he didn't have any materials to commit suicide with he didn't have a I don't know why 60 Minutes thought they were going to get away with that, but that was absolutely not, never.
	In fact, it was just the office that was reported.
	The literature was made by this cloth.
	He had to wind it, you know, because there's nothing to hang himself with.
	And now suddenly, what, six, eight months later, 60 Minutes is saying, oh, well, there was an electrical cord.
	No, there wasn't.
	I mean, if there was, someone would have reported on that.
	So it was, that's why it's not in my book.
	That is a one- Yeah.
	Report so I can pick it up.
	The revising history for political reasons.
	You know, and this is scary to me because I grew up on 60 Minutes and I believed in it
	and it was very, very upsetting.
	I was standing with- Well, their latest with President Trump
	was just a disgrace where Leslie- I don't know.
	Leslie Ball was trying to crucify him and he had very intelligently before he agreed,
	arranged to have his own film crew there.
	So he'd actually release the whole thing on- On Wednesday before they broadcast this Sunday, and it was just obvious she was just playing this role, ridiculous, by not wanting to talk about the content of the Hunter Biden laptop, which is all over the place except the mainstream media.
	Democrat connected outlet is suppressing it madly.
	And she was insisting we can't talk about it when it hasn't been verified.
	Well, the FBI's had it for ten months.
	The Hunter Biden's own attorney reached out to the repairman to seek its return,
	acknowledging it was his property.
	He waited 90 days.
	This is most consequential failure to pay a modest bill of $85 in history, Dina.
	These revelations are stunning.
	Rudy Giuliani's been laying it out in great detail.
	We have all kinds of photographs.
	You know, Leslie Stahl says it's not been verified.
	Well, here you got a photograph of Hunter Biden asleep in bed with a crack pipe hanging out of his mouth.
	What's not to be verified, Leslie, you know?
	Well, it's really, it's appalling because, you know, back in the day, the FCC and, well, not just the FCC, all of the major regulatory agencies had an expectation that most broadcasters agreed with in the 1950s and 60s, and that is to create socially appropriate programming.
	And that's been lost completely.
	There's no sense of There's just, there's no integrity left.
	I remember when Sesame Street came out and what it was such a sort of a cornerstone of what television was meant to do, you know, to sort of even the playing ground and allow children in the more impoverished areas to get access to the cognitive learning blocks that are known to be so beneficial to create groundwork for educational purposes.
	You know, One of these things is not like the other, you know, distinction, differentiation, all that stuff starting really young is very good for the child.
	They do much better in school.
	So that's an example of fabulous programming.
	And Sesame Street probably will always be on history as one of those examples.
	But even back then you had, you know, you had the Brady Bunch was so pro-social.
	The Waltons was a pro-social show.
	A lot of the shows, happy days.
	I mean, these are shows where people were nice to each other.
	And when someone was bad or mean, others would say, Hey, you know, like Marsha Brady's nose, we all saw the episode where she broke her nose and the guy didn't want to take her to prom and you know, her nose was all bruised.
	And everyone talked about how bad it was that he did that.
	And then she got better than he wanted to take her.
	And she said, no, I'm not going to go with you now.
	And that's, that's a message.
	That's a lesson to learn about treating people based on their physical appearance.
	treating them badly based on their physical appearance.
	And so we all learn those lessons.
	But look at the today, Jersey Shore, the Kardashians, good Lord, I mean, the messages young kids are getting
	are so negative.
	And I believe that's probably why the suicide rate is so high, because these kids don't want to be
	in a world like that, would you?
	See, we don't see the world that way.
	We grew up with Gilligan's Island, we don't believe that people cooperated.
	Are you talking about contemporary suicide rates among children?
	Yeah, among teens and children.
	It's got an awful lot to do with the lockdown and the lack of social interaction and not even being able to go back to school.
	Before the lockdown.
	Yeah, before the lockdown.
	Yeah, and one of my friend's son's committed suicide, and this is an incredible surfer, I mean truly, you know, remarkable, expert surfer.
	So what happened there?
	25 foot waves, no problem.
	What happened there?
	Well, I've been talking to his mother about this for years now.
	It's been three years.
	The 27th was three years, so it's only been a couple days, and I just saw her recently out in the West Coast.
	Well, a number of things.
	First of all, getting into pot, and then other things, which is very damaging for the teenage brain and can completely just The cognitive associations, the neural connections are being, literally going apart and together.
	It's called the period of exuberance.
	You know, when the fMRI studies came out about 15 years ago, a woman from, I think the New York Times wrote a book called The Primal Teen.
	And The Primal Teen is absolutely groundbreaking, unbelievable.
	We didn't know that kids at age 13 had a total reorganization of their brain.
	So when you put drugs into a brain before it's 21 or 22 or 25, The drinking age should be 25, quite frankly, not 21.
	It can completely mess up the brain and cause a lot of problems.
	This is why someone older, someone who's 25 or 30 who drinks alcohol or smokes pot, it probably won't affect them at all, but someone who's 14, 15, 16.
	So that's part of it.
	The other part of it that I was talking to his mom about was his crowd.
	He hung out with a surfing crowd in Malibu.
	And that surfing crowd, I know.
	I've hung out with the same surfing crowd.
	If I thought that crowd represented the world, I wouldn't want to be here.
	And fortunately, this young man didn't have a lot of other groups that he hung around because that was his thing.
	Surfing was his thing.
	So he wasn't as well-rounded as some kids might be who went around the world and got to know people who are in dance and theater and music.
	He had a crowd that we think now contributed to.
	And another surfer hung himself in Malibu not too long ago.
	I can't remember the name of that person, but we were talking about this was a really good surfer, like a professional surfer as well.
	And everyone was talking about how what's going on, you know, and it was a lot of a lot of cutthroat bullying in the surfing crowd.
	And so I think that's part of it as well.
	I was attacked in Hawaii.
	I think I might have mentioned that to you.
	I mean, me at 55 last year, I was surfing, not bothering anybody, a little wave, not on the big wave, a little inside wave to not get in anyone's way and someone came after me.
	Um, and I think I know why I think it is behind it, but the bottom line is, um, that is a very vicious, very, um, it's like a mobster crowd.
	And there was, in fact, a group down in, um, I think it was Manhattan Beach, or it might have been Huntington, I can't remember, but it was, they built a fort on the sand.
	They were living there and beating up anyone who like was in their way.
	And it took months when the police decided to break up this.
	I can't remember the name of it, but everyone who's in the surfing world knows about this.
	They had to break up this group over a period of months or years.
	It was unbelievable.
	They just camped on the beach and said it was their beach and were violent.
	So, you know, I don't know why they're about to get away with this, but, um, we think that's part of it.
	The crowd even, but I think drugs also played a big role.
	He then started drinking alcohol, which is a depressant.
	And, you know, I think he just got to the point where he couldn't pull out of the depression at one point.
	And that's, I think, what happened to him.
	Just to relate.
	Personally, I had an aunt now, recently deceased, who had a condo in Malibu, and an uncle, and they used to be married, but both divorced and remarried, who had a home in Manhattan Beach.
	So we're talking about, you know, I mean, I visited both her condo, his place in Manhattan Beach, I mean, I was born in Pasadena, grew up in Southern California, but the place has changed so enormously.
	People are so mean in L.A.
	I had forgotten how they drove because I've been in Houston for so long.
	Houston drivers are relatively polite.
	I mean, there's been, in the last five years, a little bit of an influx of really aggressive drivers that weave in and out and things like that, but nothing like L.A.
	People are really angry in L.A.
	I don't know what's going on, but Malibu has a high suicide rate, believe it or not.
	It's shocking how high the suicide rate is in Malibu.
	It's a combination of things.
	You know, California is doing something really, really wrong because the people are so, so angry and so unhappy.
	And I see that because I come back to Texas and I go out and about and I just see, you know, people who are a little bit more lighthearted.
	I'm not sure what is going on.
	I think you're absolutely right.
	Something is profoundly unwell about California.
	And I actually think there's so much resentment and that may be for the first time in forever that they're going to go Republican, that they're going to support Trump.
	I actually think it's a real prospect.
	I don't think this year.
	The last time I think was Ronald Reagan.
	Yeah, but look, I mean, I'm telling you.
	I can tell you there is a movement.
	I can tell you I know people who are involved in the movement.
	These are very powerful, very professional, very well-educated people who are really tired.
	Because what happened in California was, among many other things, is they've attracted a lot of People who want the social benefits of California.
	And California actually passed a law that said that if you come to California, you're going to get the welfare benefits of the state you moved from for a year.
	So someone wouldn't move from Alabama to California just to get, you know, double the size or triple the size of benefits.
	Well, that was struck down as unconstitutional.
	So what do we think happens then?
	Everyone moves to California to get the highest social benefits, welfare, whatever it is,
	unemployment in the country.
	So this influx of people, you know, taxing the system has caused a lot of problems.
	California is- And these aren't, these aren't persons of the highest character or ability as a consequence.
	They're being drawn like a magnet.
	California's been a magnet for undesirables without a doubt.
	Not that everyone who's poor is undesirable.
	There are plenty of poor people.
	There were, my family, you know, comes from, they came over, you know, Over 100 years ago and didn't have much at all.
	They wanted to get away from Europe as well as other people.
	So we come from nothing.
	But I'm saying that doesn't mean being poor doesn't make you a bad person.
	But I am saying that in this era, in the last 15, 20 years, and today, yeah, California is a magnet for people who are taxing the system without putting as much into it.
	And so the people of California have been hit with such incredible taxes that they had the whole voter What they call the voter revolt, taxpayer revolt of 1970.
	Yeah, putting a cap.
	Which resulted in Prop 13, which then caused the schools to go from like 5th in the nation to like 45th in the nation because the schools have been basically defunded by the property tax changes.
	And of course, it also led to a lot of illegal property development because if you develop properly with the proper permits, it can trigger reassessment.
	So these people are now paying $200 a month for property taxes on $2 million houses and up because they did in 1978, actually rolled it back to 76 when they passed it in 78.
	So they're getting 1976 tax rates in 2020.
	You can imagine how much they're not going to apply for permit and do things correctly because they will not be able to keep their house.
	So California's created some really bad policies.
	And looking back, you know, 40 years after the fact, we can see how horrible the policies are.
	But at the time, they were trying to limit government expenditures, and it didn't really work too well.
	It did destroy the public school system, where it's just, it's abysmal at this point.
	And I think it's linked in the bottom.
	You know, there are two other areas of your research that intrigue me.
	The first has to do with these Sex behavior torts.
	I mean, I take it those may be related to like the unknowing transmission of sexual diseases like herpes, but no doubt a host of others.
	I'm just interested in the range of these kinds of sex torts.
	Well, when I wrote Sex Torts, the book, I'm sorry, the book is forthcoming, by the way.
	When I wrote the articles, it was one, but it became two.
	One of my colleagues, Connie Fain, who's a torts professor, she said to me, Dina, you really have two articles in here, and she was right.
	I had a whole section on sexual disease transmission, and then a whole other section on invasion of privacy, assault and battery, intentional torts, and whatnot.
	I decided to make two articles out of it.
	So the first one was just sexual disease, and that's in the Minnesota Law Review.
	And what I found in my research, someone I know from my hometown got herpes, and this is a person who's never slept around, I mean, ever!
	Had like one husband and then divorced at like a later in life, and then, you know, met the wrong person.
	And so I was just outraged, and I found out through my research that It's a very small percentage of mostly men who transmit almost 100% of diseases.
	It's the same guys going out there.
	And this guy, by the way, was known, it turned out later, to get around a lot.
	He was a pilot.
	And so, he went around giving this to women.
	That is the typical scenario, where the same man gives multiple women herpes.
	Most men, even if they have herpes, never pass it on.
	Statistically speaking, that's a fact.
	Now, it was back then.
	Nowadays, things have changed a little, because young people are sleeping around more than ever before, and so it's hard to say if the old statistics hold true.
	But when I saw that, 3% of our population was responsible for 100% of disease transformation, I thought, okay, we've got to stop these guys.
	Three percent?
	Why should the rest of us pay?
	At that time, and still today, the law is unless you can prove negligence, then you can't, you know, win a lawsuit.
	Well, that's ridiculous because they're going to say they didn't know!
	And they can't be negligent for transmitting a disease if they didn't know they had it.
	But you could prove, for example, if they've been diagnosed or treated for it, that they did know.
	Sure, but one of my arguments was people aren't going to get diagnosed.
	They're not going to get tested because they're not going to want to know.
	And they're not going to want the evidence.
	Remember, these guys, and I say guys because mostly men, it's part of the way that we're built physically.
	Women contract diseases easier.
	and then pass them easier, you know, just the way it is.
	Right, biology.
	Biology. And so, you know, we want to encourage testing and encourage safe sex, not discourage it,
	because the same men who are most likely to have diseases are also the least likely to wear condoms.
	I mean, I went through all the research saying, my God, you've got these basic, risky guys out there who sleep around.
	And believe it or not, you know, these are not idiots always.
	These are oftentimes your young doctors and their fancy cars and their money and, you know, they're nice looking young men.
	They're going to get a lot of women, especially because they're a doctor.
	And when I was at a trial in Dallas, watching one of these herpes trials, There were nine other cases pending in Dallas and all nine of the defendants were doctors.
	And now you can say 7-Eleven boy isn't going to get sued.
	But yes and no, there's also an attitude among certain people who are knowledgeable at the law and they figure you can't do anything to me, they just don't care.
	Well, Dina, I get the impression some of these people feel they want everyone to have herpes so they won't be alone and so, you know, they won't be stigmatized so they just are eager to share.
	They want to spread herpes.
	That's really disgusting because this is a very nasty disease.
	Oh, it's terrible, and I didn't know how bad it was either until I read.
	I mean, people get really, really sick, and it's incredibly painful.
	And I had never heard it was painful until I read the research.
	These weird open sores and so forth, I mean, good God!
	Very, very painful.
	Keep people up at night, people can't drive, can't walk, and it depends on the person.
	The trial I saw in Dallas involved a plaintiff who had a terrible, terrible reaction.
	She was completely debilitated from it.
	So I heard firsthand at that trial how bad it can be and it is absolutely horrible to do that to someone.
	Way worse than stealing a widget from Best Buy, okay?
	And yet, stealing a widget from Best Buy.
	Gosh, in California, if it's the third strike, you'll be in prison for the rest of your life!
	And Erwin Chemerinsky took that case to the U.S.
	Supreme Court.
	A guy, a black guy, had stolen, like, three videos from Blockbuster.
	But it was his third crime, and he was put away for life imprisonment!
	And Erwin lost that case.
	He's lost the most.
	I think he's six and one at the Supreme Court.
	I mean, one and six.
	But really, for life, over videos... Ridiculous, yeah.
	Life for giving a bunch of women herpes, that's another matter.
	Far worse behavior.
	Yeah, far worse.
	I don't know what would happen to a guy like that in a prison, you know?
	I don't, well, I don't know, but, you know, our society is making some big, big mistakes in failing to assess criminal liability appropriate appropriately based on the, you know, the wrongfulness of
	the conduct.
	Because to me, if someone stole three videos from me, I may not like it,
	but if someone gave me herpes, boy, I would want a remedy.
	I would be, I would...
	Oh, I'm with you, 100%.
	But I'm into health too, so for me it would be worse than the average person probably,
	because I'm so, so into health and fitness and that, and it would just be devastating for me.
	So I, it just, there's something wrong with putting a man in prison for the rest of his life.
	And then most of these guys running around spreading herpes are out doing it again.
	So there are a lot of people that do get sued.
	They do lose and they do get hit with punitive damages.
	In that Dallas trial, I mentioned he got hit with a million dollars of punitive damages because he was worth, I think 7 million or something like that on paper.
	So they gave her a million.
	Absolutely.
	damages, but it was also countered a little bit by her own fault that said she was like
	30% of all or something.
	Are damages ever calculated in relation to ability to pay or they just done?
	Absolutely.
	In most states, punitive damages are directly a function of the defendant's wealth, which
	is why all the wealth documents come out after the punitive damages decision has been made
	by the jury and then turn to assess punitive damages and then they assess how much based
	on the defendant's wealth.
	But some places like Texas are more conservative and they want to see a relationship between
	the amount of actual damages and punitive damages, which to me defeats the whole purpose
	of punitive damages.
	Because you want to punish the person.
	If it's Bill Gates, let's say, you can't punish him.
	Let's say he causes someone, you know, $70,000 in medical damages.
	And let's say there's a limit that you can only get twice as much impunitive.
	So the person gets $140 impunitive.
	Does Bill Gates even notice if $140,000 is removed from his account?
	Because I'm guessing he doesn't.
	Because for me that would be like $14 and I wouldn't notice.
	Or less than that, probably a dollar, probably a penny.
	But whatever the case, you see what I'm saying?
	You can't deter people With small amounts of money, if they're worth billions or multiple millions of dollars.
	So that's what I like about California.
	California has some really good legal policies.
	There's unlimited punitive damages for most torts, and there's unlimited punitive damages for under the Fair Employment and Housing Act, which is the Title VII state counter card.
	And for Title VII, they're limited.
	So that's why we would always file under FEPA instead of Title VII in California.
	Does it have the desired effect of causing renters, realtors, and so forth to actually act in accordance with the law and be non-discriminatory, or does it have no effect anyway?
	Well, I can tell you from my own personal experience and what I've seen in the real estate field in California, there's enormous amounts of real estate fraud.
	It's a massive amount of real estate fraud.
	Oh, yeah.
	Oh, it's disgusting.
	I mean, most people hide all sorts of things, especially permits that are invalid.
	That's something that you don't see.
	Well, the 1996 California passed a law immunizing title companies from errors on preliminary title reports, which is unbelievable, because everyone relies on preliminary title reports.
	Our house in Malibu showed nothing other than a bunch of liens, which we knew would be paid off at the time of closure, so you won't worry about the liens.
	Well, there was a building code violation on our house, and it was recorded, but Chicago Title didn't tell us.
	I don't know if they knew or not, but they didn't tell us.
	It wasn't on the preliminary title report.
	And this is gonna cost us, you know, hundreds of thousands of dollars.
	It's already cost us, you don't even wanna know how much.
	It's outrageous.
	But the California legislature decided to basically immunize title companies.
	And so, and realtors don't know this.
	I tell them, it's like, what do you mean?
	You can't sue them?
	I said, no.
	And I learned after the lawsuit was filed.
	And my attorney didn't even know.
	And I saw the motion for summary judgment or the, I'm not sure if it was the man or what, I said, hey, I read the law.
	They're right.
	We can't sue them for that.
	It was unbelievable.
	So that's a big piece of it in my opinion.
	That needs to be reversed.
	That's insane.
	I heard Georgia has the same law where title companies are immune or 100% are largely immunized for errors on title reports.
	It's the single most important document, of course.
	Look at the insanity of giving no liability to Big Pharma for the effects of vaccinations, vaccines.
	I mean, this is one of the dumbest things in the history.
	Well, that's why we as individuals need to reject Big Pharma individually.
	And that's why I'm so intent on making sure, doing what I can, Um, to make sure it's a matter of choice.
	I mean, I'm a big proponent of freedom of choice, you know, um, and when it comes to vaccines, it's got to be a personal choice because what I studied, what I wrote, I recently wrote an article on the vaccine controversy and constitutional limits to coerced vaccination because vaccination isn't actually mandatory.
	It's coerced because you can't put your child in school without vaccination.
	So it's like, well, actually you can in some states.
	So many of these vaccines have known harmful effects, Deena.
	Not just that, they don't work.
	I mean, studies show the flu vaccine largely doesn't work.
	It's a great way to get the flu.
	You want to have the flu, get the flu vaccine.
	Well, and Cochran came out with a study that said it had a 1% efficacy rate.
	1%!
	She takes the flu shot.
	How many people take the flu shot and one won't get the flu because of it?
	And I can tell you, I got a flu shot years ago.
	I was so sick.
	I had a lump in my arm for months, years.
	I mean, I can still feel where it was.
	This was now like 7 years ago.
	It did something really bad to me.
	Maybe it hit a nerve, I don't know.
	That's the last vaccination I got.
	But even the CDC says it's a 40% efficacy rate over the last 10 years.
	40% isn't very good, and they're requiring healthcare workers to get it.
	And I talked to a lady in California about this over the summer, and she was a healthcare worker, and she told me she got a fake certificate of vaccination.
	So that's what happens.
	Black markets emerged for these proofs, I'm sorry, these certificates of vaccination because people don't want to be vaccinated.
	They're afraid of it, and they have good reason to be afraid of it.
	That market's going to burgeon if they come out with a CV vaccine, I'll tell you.
	Well, Trump said he would not allow it to be mandatory, but I don't know how he can Yeah, Scott Atlas, who's his new, you know, presidential advisor, has made that observation that it will not be mandatory.
	Honestly, I think Barron's been adversely affected by vaccines in the past and is partially autistic as a consequence.
	So I don't think Trump has any confidence in vaccines.
	I don't know.
	Well, I talked to a lady the other day from, or I actually emailed back and forth, a lady who works for Bobby Kennedy and the Children's Health Defense.
	And I also read this online.
	They're talking about Bobby Jr.
	Yes, Bobby Jr.
	But anyway, you know, a high percent of children, boys in particular, a very high percentage have, these boys have, not just autism, but it's all sorts of learning disabilities, ADD, depression, anxiety, at a rate that we never saw prior to 1989.
	In 1986, Congress passed the vaccine law that immunized the companies and of course immediately the vaccine companies from the harms from vaccines for children.
	And this thing called the Vaccine Court emerged, and no one even knew.
	I was researching this, and I asked my husband, a very seasoned lawyer, have you heard of the Vaccine Court?
	What's that?
	No, what's that?
	I asked law professors, have you heard of this Vaccine Court?
	What's the Vaccine Court?
	We hadn't even heard of it.
	That's how much it's kept quiet.
	And what happens is children have been kept quiet.
	But what happened after 86 is... Dini, you froze up.
	Yeah, keep going.
	It'll come back, I expect.
	To require more and more vaccines for the children to get into school.
	So they're selling more and more vaccine.
	And these are very, I mean, they're a billion dollar, multi-billion dollar industry.
	You know, it's an incredible amount of money.
	And like one of the companies recently got hit with an $8 billion, I don't know if it was a Gerber
	to sell me, it just kind of flashed in the news and I saw it and I'm so busy, but I,
	these companies get hit with 4 billion, 3 billion, $8 billion verdicts who said,
	they go right on doing business.
	So obviously that's not enough to put them out of business.
	To me, some of the things, especially like with the- It's like soft drinks, Dina.
	The markup is so enormous.
	It costs a nickel to make a can of Coke, and you sell it for a buck, you know.
	These vaccines are very inexpensive to produce, and you sell them for a fabulous sum.
	I mean, for Gates, this is a business.
	He wants to have everything in the world to make big bucks.
	The most expensive vaccine in the history of the world is the HPV vaccine at, you know, a few hundred dollars.
	The HPV vaccine, Cochrane actually had a big problem with one of its founders and the founders now out of Cochrane and lost his post and everything because he said they had falsified basically the HPV data and they left out of their big study on the HPV vaccine the deaths of the girls.
	They left out those studies, and it created a big controversy, and then there's all sorts of information online.
	I put in my article, the article right now is just published at SSRN.com, but I discuss how much money was spent on lobbying, and I mean, there's all these news articles that came out at the time, and then Hawaii makes it mandatory.
	Well, Hawaii's got, of course, a lot of problems.
	I mean, Hawaii is so corrupt.
	So thoroughly corrupt.
	I had one of my professors from Berkeley who actually moved to Hawaii because she grew up there partly and I went there to invest and she said do not invest in Hawaii.
	It is so so corrupt and so I decided not to invest there.
	But to require that of girls to go to school is just an outrage.
	We don't even know if it works.
	We know that if a girl's been exposed to HPV and they don't pre-screen the girls, but if they've been exposed to HPV and then get the vaccine, they can get really, really sick.
	Oh, yeah.
	And they'll screen the girls before getting this vaccine.
	And there's such a low probability of requiring this in the first place.
	I mean, it's just ridiculous.
	Well, HPV is actually really, really, really prevalent.
	It surpassed herpes, I'd say, probably about 10 years ago in terms of prevalence.
	So it used to be herpes was the most common sexual disease, now it's HPV.
	And HPV is so dangerous because you have no symptoms oftentimes for many years,
	and it can manifest as cancer.
	I was thinking about this, I don't know, cancer of the cervix or something,
	that if you didn't have multiple partners over a long period of time,
	the probability was infinitesimal.
	But they were wanting to vaccinate girls for this in spite of it.
	Very expensive series.
	I mean, it was just a gigantic ripoff.
	Well, and that's where the religious objections came about, because some girls have You know, religious belief that they aren't going to be sleeping around.
	And truth is, if you don't sleep around, you are much less likely to get it.
	It's so complicated, though, because it's gotten out to such a degree that a girl could have one boyfriend, you know, at age 19 or 20 and get it and not know she has it.
	So it's dangerous.
	And I remember a friend of mine, a colleague who passed away, told me when it came out, she was doing research and said, Dina, you've got to tell everyone to get this vaccine.
	And I said, Karen, I can't do that.
	I don't, you know, it's different than smallpox.
	Smallpox was a very, very different, first of all, you don't have control.
	You have control whether you're gonna catch a sexual disease by and large.
	You have to have sex.
	So people have a very, they have more control of their lives and their bodies.
	But then some people say, but you know girls could get raped
	or they could get into a situation where they're given a date rape drug
	or they're just passed out or they're taking advantage of or they make a mistake and they consent
	because they're in the moment or whatever.
	Yes, that's true.
	But that again goes right back to personal choice.
	I mean, what about the girl who says, I will not have sex until I'm married, and I won't have sex until I test my husband and myself?
	Why should she have to take the vaccine for something she's in control of avoiding altogether?
	So I am against re-blocking that vaccine, even though I know a lot of people say everyone should get it.
	I don't know, especially if you look at the studies on efficacy.
	The efficacy studies are very, very problematic, and they're not being disclosed to the public.
	Yeah, the firms producing or principally funding the research, so they want to come out favorable to get their product on the market, even if it involves fraud, faking data, and the whole bit.
	Well, and this is this whole COVID thing that we started talking about the other day when you asked me to be on the show and the whole, you know, the Children's Health Defense Account, the story.
	Just a few days ago, on the 23rd, called the World Health Organization taps anti-conspiracy crusader to sway public opinion on COVID vaccine.
	There it is.
	Anyway, what they're talking about is that Cass Sunstein started a program at Harvard called the Program on Behavioral Economics and Public Policy last July.
	And now he apparently has been retained to help create programs to cognitively program people to accept vaccine or
	even want the vaccine.
	And we know a lot from the research that, and here's a quote, he put in a paper back
	in 2008.
	And this paper proposed that the government employ teams of covert agents to cognitively
	infiltrate online dissident groups and websites which advocate false conspiracy theories about
	My first question is how do you get to false conspiracy theory?
	Anyway, it says, quote, our principal claim here involves the potential value of cognitive infiltration of extremist groups designed to introduce infinite, sorry, designed to introduce informational diversity into such groups and to expose indefensible Conspiracy theories as such.
	Okay, why do you need cognitive infiltration if they're indefensible conspiracy theories?
	If they're indefensible, you can use reason.
	So I don't know why they would resort to cognitive infiltration or cognitive persuasion.
	Remember, this goes right back to implicit bias.
	It's the exact same thing.
	You're causing people to go in a certain direction without their conscious knowledge.
	To prime them, to program them to think a certain way about vaccines, when if your argument is so great, just make the argument and let the rational actor decide for himself.
	This bypasses the rational actor assumption, in my opinion, because you're persuading people subliminally, and I don't like that.
	You're actually talking about an operation to defeat the exposure of the truth when the government has committed massive lies upon the public they don't want to be exposed.
	Well, they're saying it's not the truth.
	They're saying, well, these theories are conspiracy.
	Yeah, but that's begging the question, how the hell would they know?
	Exactly.
	Again, right.
	I mean, well, whether it's the truth or not is why the public gets to hear all the time.
	You conduct research and rational debate and you present evidence and you make arguments.
	And the Supreme Court has said there's no value in false speech.
	So if it's false speech, you know, there's no value in it anyway.
	But if it's questionable or partially true, you've got to give it protection because the whole smorgasbord of ideas, let people kind of pick through the smorgasbord and decide what they believe and what they don't.
	But when you start giving poisoned items on the smorgasbord, they're taking that.
	They don't know.
	Let me give you three examples that I'm sure Cass Sunstein would think research groups promoting these ideas need
	to be infiltrated cognitively.
	That Lee Oswald didn't shoot JFK.
	That 19 Islamic terrorists under the control of a guy in a cave in Afghanistan
	didn't attack us on 9-11.
	And that Sandy Hook was not a mass shooting, but actually a FEMA two-day exercise
	promoted as a mass shooting to advance gun control.
	Now, he'd probably dispute all of those, but every one of those is true.
	I've done a huge amount of research.
	I have published books, and I know the facts of the matter.
	I know the evidence inside out.
	I've given thousands of lectures on these subjects.
	And, you know, for him to think he could arrogantly infiltrate And there's massive disinformation in JFK research, and in 9-11 research, and in Sandy Hook.
	I mean, I know that for a fact, but how would he know who's on the right side?
	What in the hell gives him— You know what he's being told.
	What he's being told by the media.
	I mean, this is the thing, okay?
	I did a research project years ago and about, you know, what speech is protected and what speech is not protected.
	There was a couple cases.
	One, I think, Ozzy Osbourne got sued on one of them.
	And the question to the court was, when there's subliminal speech in a song, Is that speech protective?
	And the court said no, because it bypasses the cognitive, rational decision-making process that is protected by the First Amendment.
	That process of deciding for yourself what to believe is why we have a First Amendment, why we allow speech, harmful speech, upsetting speech, nasty jokes.
	The Jerry Falwell versus Hustler case where they made a really offensive joke about him
	having lost his virginity to his mother in an outhouse.
	I mean, pretty crass, pretty disgusting.
	But he sued and he lost because the court said basically, it was a parody.
	No one really would take it seriously, but the bottom line is you're a public figure too.
	So you have to expect to have people make fun of you.
	But what concerns me is we know that Subliminal messages work through advertising.
	We know that advertising studies have proven that people are more likely to get up and go get popcorn at the movie theater if popcorn's flashing the screen.
	And they flash it not long enough to consciously be aware of it, just long enough for you to think, hey, I think I'll get some popcorn.
	And to me, that's really sneaky.
	I don't like that kind of thing.
	I would prefer them just to say, hey, wouldn't you like some nice, hot, buttery popcorn?
	Try to entice the person to make a choice, not subliminally, in a sneaky manner, get them to think about popcorn.
	And so to me, it's the same thing.
	If you have a good argument, you don't have to sneak around.
	And I don't like the idea of infiltrating any system Subliminal message or cognitive.
	Yeah, yeah.
	Sunstein is basically being taken on as a PR guy, a marketing guy for the vaccination industry because they want him to discredit those who are exposing the hazards of vaccines by claiming that they have some improper motive, you know.
	Right.
	Well, it's a huge, huge industry.
	Anytime this kind of money is changing hands, you're the most Horrible form of evil emerges, right?
	Because money, big, big amounts of money tend to go hand in hand with evil because people lose sight of what's important, of people's individuality, people's health, people's lives even, you know?
	So I think that the amount of money changing hands is why.
	This is happening.
	It's enormous.
	I go through some of the numbers in my article that's on SSRI now.
	It's called The Vaccine Controversy and Constitutional Limits to Coerced Vaccination.
	And I also argue some of these vaccine laws in the schools are unconstitutional, especially the flu vaccine in New York.
	It's not even efficacious.
	I mean, it doesn't even work that well on these kids!
	Six-month-old kids are required to get vaccinated, to get flu vaccine every year, before going to school or daycare.
	And one of the things Bobby Candy came out with, Bernie Jr., came out with recently on the Children's Self-Defense website, was this this very high correlation between those who obtained
	or those who had the flu shot prior to getting COVID and those who died of COVID.
	And it turned out that the vast majority, according to this research,
	of persons who died of COVID in New York had gotten the flu vaccine that year.
	So someone might say, well, it's irrelevant, it's a coincidence.
	Okay, maybe it's a coincidence.
	It is always confounding factors because see, I think a lot of those care facilities
	require the vaccine, the flu vaccine, as part of the policy.
	And then of course, there are these facilities where there's a lot of germs passed around.
	So there could be other factors, but I'm just saying, that's been squashed.
	And I think Bobby Kennedy Jr.
	was kicked off Facebook or Twitter or both.
	I can't remember ever hearing about it, reading about it.
	I'm like, Bobby Kennedy Jr.
	was kicked off?
	And now recently, Kayleigh, is it Kayleigh McEnany, was just kicked off of Twitter.
	And then just today, the commissioner... The press secretary to the president!
	You're crying out loud.
	So basically, There's a lot of manipulation going on in the mass media and the problem with Twitter and Facebook
	Is that they're not owned by the government, and so the First Amendment does not apply.
	Remember that you have to have state action for any constitutional clause to come into play.
	On the other hand, Dina, the Internet Decency Act, they gave them a special exemption from liability because they were supposed to serve as a common carrier, as a platform to allow all positions to be presented That's a different issue.
	Yeah, we're talking about a different issue.
	One is civil liability for defamation, invasion of privacy, things like that.
	And yes, CVA does have a provision.
	I'm talking about the massive censorship they've been imposing on the American people.
	You know, taking down YouTubes, banning tweets, all this.
	Go, go.
	What's so problematic is that Facebook, and you might argue Twitter, are more persuasive with our people than the government at this point.
	So then the question becomes, is there any way to apply constitutional standards, including free speech, to these private entities?
	The answer is yes, there is a way.
	There was a private town, an older case, where they weren't allowing,
	I think it was a free speech case, and this is going way back to law school now,
	so it's a years ago, but I remember this case, because there was a town that was privately owned
	and they weren't allowing people to, have free speech in the sidewalks.
	And the court said, you know what, you're performing a public function,
	therefore you have to adhere to the same first amendment standards as the government.
	So they sort of nailed a private town, as I recall, with constitutional standards
	that normally private companies do not have to deal with.
	The constitution is to limit the power of the government, not the power of private industry.
	And so someone needs to make a really good argument, and I'm not sure what that argument would be like,
	that these companies, Facebook and Twitter, Are performing somehow a government type function.
	And YouTube and Google.
	Of course.
	But see, they can get away with it.
	They can censor.
	They can knock people off Twitter.
	They can knock people off Facebook because they're not the government and they don't have to allow free speech.
	Well, we got to change the law so they're liable for what they do.
	And that, you know, I think there's a lot that's got to go on here and it's going to happen.
	It's going to happen.
	But see, here's the difference.
	If a law is passed, now that's state action.
	So a law is passed saying, hey Facebook, you don't get to monitor what is said on your platform.
	Now Facebook has a lawsuit against, a constitutional lawsuit, and could argue the law should be stricken because it violates their First Amendment rights to speak or not to speak.
	Remember the First Amendment includes the right to speak, The right to hear, the right not to hear, and the right not to speak.
	So it's a whole bunch, it's a bundle of rights, not just the right to speak out.
	So they can say, we have the right not to speak, or to limit speak, or not, you know, so it's complicated.
	But look, we're talking about the public airwaves.
	We're talking about them utilizing a resource that they were only entitled to use by the government, by dispensation.
	Right, I understand, but the licensing argument has failed.
	being licensed by the FCC, being licensed by whatever, you know, the cable, well, cable's actually
	probably privately owned, but let's say it's a government, whatever it is, being licensed by a government agency
	does not create state action.
	So just having a license isn't sufficient.
	State action means the government is acting.
	And so I see your point, and a lot of people have argued that or made that argument that, hey,
	if you're getting any kind of government funding or if you're getting a government license,
	you should be bound by the Constitution, but that isn't how it's been interpreted.
	So state action is a whole doctrine.
	We have to show state action, and that's when these cases come up.
	Is it state action or not?
	is the government sufficiently intertwined or entangled with the action to create state action out of the behavior.
	Let me give you an example.
	If a neighbor comes by, and we have these things called neurocars,
	N-U-R-O, neurocars, and they are coming through our neighborhood,
	we live in the Jewish community in Houston called Meyerland, and I'm talking every five, 10 minutes,
	and they have a camera on top that is taking photos, film of everything as they drive through our neighborhoods.
	So I'm in my robe, I'm picking up the garbage in my, you know, in my robe, and I look up and there's someone filming me in my neighborhood.
	Now that's really offensive to me, but because they're not the government, I don't have necessarily some kind of Fourth Amendment argument against them.
	They're not the government.
	Now I could have an invasion of privacy possibly, you know, but if they were, if the government hired them, a private company to go out and take these photos and give
	them to the government, now you probably have state action. Same with, this is why,
	why I remember, I remember, you know, talking, I remember Charles Whitebird, some of the things
	he said in class and so, and criminal procedure and criminal law and things you shouldn't do. I
	mean, you should never, ever, ever have something out because it's bad.
	It could result in criminal liability.
	You know, a lot of law students smoke pot.
	You know, don't leave your pipe out.
	Don't leave your bong out.
	Why?
	By the window, neighbor walks by, takes a photo of it in a state where it's illegal.
	Now that photo is not state action.
	That's a private individual taking a photo.
	Could they turn over to the police?
	Well, yeah.
	I mean, could you have it?
	Would you have a Fourth Amendment right against I think it's a real problem.
	So people have to understand that just because something done is wrong doesn't create a constitutional issue.
	It has to be a wrong performed by the government, by an agent of the government.
	So back to Facebook.
	Look, at the very least, the exemption from liability has got to be rescinded.
	That's got to be abolished.
	Because now they're playing... I mean, the concept originally was they would be like a library.
	They'd allow, you know, all books to be published and they weren't responsible for the content, only the author.
	And they were just making them available.
	But now they've assumed the role of a publisher by virtue of censorship to determine what we can see or not see, what we can hear or not hear.
	I understand your argument, but here's the flip side of that.
	If there isn't an immunization under the Communications Decency Act, then that requires Facebook and Twitter to monitor every single thing that's put online before it's put online.
	Otherwise, someone could write on there, you know, so-and-so raped my daughter yesterday.
	I saw it, okay?
	And that didn't happen.
	But you understand what that's going to do to people's ability to put things online quickly.
	Because everything's going to have a lag time then.
	So it's complicated.
	You want people to get on Expressences.
	The writers aren't liable.
	It's just that... The functions they're serving, Dina, are so central to society that they ought to be government-run.
	That they ought to be nationalized.
	Well, then you have another problem.
	Okay, let's say All political speech has to go through a government owned website so that there's first amendment protections and you can't squelch speech and things like that.
	I remember once saying to my former law professor, a constitutional law professor saying, you know, um, it just seems like, you know, there should be some regulation of the speech.
	He said, here's the problem.
	Either you have, in other words, what's worse, than allowing private industry to manipulate our speech.
	He said there's only one thing worse than that, that's allowing the government to manipulate our speech.
	I think all speech can be allowed unless it's immediately inflammatory, but individuals ought to be liable for their speech.
	People are liable, if you can find them, they are liable.
	I talk about that in my second book, about these men who got online and just harassed the heck out of these young, beautiful law students just because they were extremely beautiful young girls.
	And they just, I mean, they trashed their whole lives, okay?
	They went to court.
	They did find some of them.
	They got a court order to find out who these, because they used monikers, of course, the cowards, you know, they wouldn't put their name to it.
	But the actual website was not liable.
	It turned out that one of the key perpetrators also created the website.
	And so I put, and I announced who he is in my book because the court ordered that they finally settled in the settlement agreement and ultimate order.
	Was it his name not be disclosed?
	And I felt it should be disclosed.
	He went by a moniker called AK-47 and just called, said that girls deserve to be raped if they dressed a certain way, things like that.
	His name is Jarrett Cohen.
	Jarrett Cohen, we know who you are now.
	And he started a website called AutoAdmit.
	And this is just a racist, anti-Semitic, I mean, just terrible website.
	But it was created supposedly as a forum for law students to get on and talk about what law school they're going to and admissions and all that.
	And they just trashed these two young women.
	And so all these issues came up in these cases that I talk about in my second book, this one.
	I'll show you real quick.
	And the third part called The Numbers of Me Too.
	when I talk about the people's attempts to avoid liability for slamming others by hiding behind a moniker
	and how you can get a court order, AT&T, whoever, to disclose the IP address of who sent that.
	And so you can get to it.
	But the smartest ones, I shouldn't say smartest, the most sneakiest people involved,
	they think were near law students.
	And guess what?
	Those students were smart enough to go and get an anonymous account where there was no tracing.
	Because some of the things said online, you could tell by what they said
	they were at the law school, talking about what these girls did in class
	and what they wore, but those people were never identified because I guess they had a sixth sense
	or just common sense knew that they don't ever wanna be identified,
	so they got anonymous monikers and were never found.
	Dina, my understanding is that all companies in order to get a charter up until around 1913
	had to be able to establish they were performing a function for the public good.
	Now it seems to me that these Twitter, Facebook, Google, YouTube are no longer doing that because they're trying to manipulate attitudes which has been writ large in this particular political contest Because right now we have all this sensational explosive material coming from the Hunter Biden laptop and they're censoring everybody who talks about it.
	I mean it's outrageous.
	Tucker Carlson has had major exposés about it and he of this fellow Tony Bobulinski, who is a business partner with Joe Biden, have face-to-face conversations about his business activities with his son.
	Which, of course, as a candidate had denied even occurred.
	So he's demonstrating this man has been lying to the public.
	There's so much else there that shows he's of low moral character.
	And yet, during this last debate, he said this really was a debate about character.
	Just as he said he'd never taken a cent of foreign money, both of which are contradicted by the evidence here.
	Tucker was reporting, in all their searches of all the other networks, there's not a single mention of the name of Tony Bobulinski.
	Yeah, that's very disconcerting.
	I also saw the Wall Street Journal had, someone had made a, I think it was the editors of the Journal, and this is what they do, like the New York Times, too, when there's something that no one wants to be the one to say it, the editorial staff wrote this, but they said, you know, we need an explanation, Joe Biden, and he's just not addressing it.
	The public deserves an explanation for the, or at least a comeback.
	What say you to this man who comes forward saying this about you?
	And you're just not hearing much, which is disconcerting.
	But you see, unfortunately in our society, keeping your mouth shut and refusing to answer questions is the way to get ahead in these high political positions.
	For example, Supreme Court justices or nominees, I should say, before the Senate,
	when they're asked these questions, they just won't answer anything.
	It's like, and then they get confirmed.
	So now they've all, the way they get confirmed is to not answer any questions.
	Say, I don't know, I never thought about it.
	You never thought about abortion?
	You never thought about how you'd rule on abortion rights?
	Really?
	I mean, that's hard to believe and I don't believe it.
	But they say that because that is the path to confirmation.
	Say, I never thought about it.
	Say, I don't know what I would do.
	You know, and it's everyone's thought about abortion.
	Everyone.
	How can you not?
	You've seen clinics and women get it.
	So, unfortunately, we live in a society where lying and denying what you know or denying or just not saying anything in light of allegations has proven to be a path that leads to success.
	That needs to change.
	And I don't know how.
	I have a lot of ideas in the back of my second book on what things need to be done.
	And I'm sort of going after the lawyers, and doctors, and dentists, who basically are protected by the boards and the bars that are supposed to protect the public from them.
	And the more you know about this, the more you'll be sick, because the state boards hide all the medical complaints lodged against the doctors, the state bars hide all the complaints lodged against lawyers, and the DTPA, the Deceptive Trade Practices Act, can apply to doctors and lawyers for deceptive trade practices.
	And yet, and you only need one plane if it's true, but it helps a lot to have witnesses who have the exact same, you know, slip of a conch, slip of a hand, whatever it is, and you can't get the other planes because they won't release.
	You can have a hundred complaints against the same lawyer for the same kind of trickery.
	And that plaintiff who goes to the bar and makes a complaint can't get any of the other complaints.
	Well, how is she supposed to prove that this guy is making a pattern of fraud?
	So I propose a centralized, privatized website to lodge all these complaints and organize them.
	And I would like to start that. And someone needs to do this because, and same for the boards,
	the dental boards, the medical boards. This stuff should not be hidden from the public.
	It should be a situation where you put in your dentist's name and you find out what everyone has said about him.
	You have Yelp, but Yelp isn't vetted and my system I propose would be at least somewhat vetted.
	I'd want to see the documents.
	I want to see the court orders.
	I want to see, especially for judges, You know, we have the robing room, and the robing room is the best thing we have, and it's helpful.
	But we need more open, public complaint systems to see who the bad guys are.
	And Harvey Weinstein, again, back to book two, in Harvey Weinstein's case, there were women who went to the EEOC.
	Cantor or Megan Toohey went to get a complaint against Weinstein to find out what was alleged.
	They said they lost it.
	Well, they said they didn't have the complaint and they knew it had just been filed.
	So the EEOC now is hiding evidence.
	So it's not just the state bars and the state courts.
	Our government is a problem.
	Our government is not disclosing to the public on so many levels.
	It isn't just the mainstream media.
	We're living in like an era of massive fraud and massive misinformation.
	A complete disregard for the little guy, the average person, the civilian, you know, the taxpayer.
	You know, I gotta say, I think you're sensational.
	I love the breadth of your work.
	You're taking all these subtle aspects of issues that are familiar, but you give them a novel twist.
	I would love to take advantage of your brilliance if you could sketch a brief About how to deal with these social media giants in relation to the private town imposing the constitutional protections, First Amendment, on these social media giants in somehow a comparison there to I would be in your debt, I would want to publish it, I would want to promote it.
	I think it could be historically significant.
	We have a great lot of articles.
	I don't have time for them now, but the first key is to find out what government function Facebook is performing.
	What government function?
	Well, it's a communication between the members of the community so that they can You know, cooperate potentially in achieving common goals to advance their personal, family, friends, and national interests.
	It seems to be a great social function that ought not to be constrained by inhibiting what they can say or not say on political or ideological grounds.
	Well, I thought about just closing all my accounts and just not, you know, I've noticed it seems like a lot less activity in Facebook lately.
	I just, I don't, I don't do much Facebook, but it just seems like, looking at my friends' posts, there's not as many likes, there's not, people just aren't on it.
	Dina, Dina, Dina, Dina, these have been the most successful social communication Phenomena in history.
	The venues have been phenomenal.
	There are billions who are using Facebook and Twitter.
	We need to do something to preserve the right, the freedom of speech, and freedom of the press from the private owners imposing their own views, their own politics, and their own ideology.
	I think that's an enormous important issue for American society.
	I agree, but perhaps, you know, with government tyranny, with private enterprise oppression, sometimes the people have had to come up with their own systems.
	That's just reality.
	I think what we need to do as individuals is start recognizing the value of, you know, ventures, get-togethers, gatherings, With no smartphones, no computers, the value of no chance of being recorded, the value of meeting in small groups one-on-one and being able to fully express yourself without it being posted on the internet, that value I think needs to be sort of, you know, reconsidered.
	I think there's enormous value where people meet in groups and freely discuss things and it's not going to end up on anyone's computer.
	We're not going to go around destroying computers and keyboards.
	I'm saying disseminate the message that there is value in completely eliminating electronics from our lives, at least part-time.
	But it's not going to happen, Dina.
	I know people.
	Who do not do anything with social media, and these are really smart educators.
	Yeah, but look, I'm talking about the great mass of humanity.
	Well, I'm not sure what the answer is, but... Well, I'm suggesting you offered a case, and perhaps you can just send me the site so I can take a look at it myself, of that private town.
	That's just a fascinating example.
	The problem with the case, it hasn't been extended that I know of, so it isn't something that took hold and became a whole body of law as I know.
	I haven't looked into it, but I think I would know if it had, and I will look into it.
	At the tip of my tongue, the name of the case, I just can't remember.
	You have a broad knowledge of a wide range of subjects that normally one person doesn't possess.
	I find you such a valuable resource on these issues.
	I think what you're doing is wonderful.
	You have a broad knowledge of a wide range of subjects that normally one person doesn't
	possess.
	I've been studying every day.
	I find you such a valuable resource on these issues.
	I think what you're doing is wonderful.
	Well, I'd like to work for a think tank.
	I have a lot of ideas and one of the ideas I have for empowering girls, and I'm thinking
	about trying to do it on my own, is creating some kind of educational system that is free
	It should be in high school as far as I'm concerned.
	Bring back vocational schools.
	Give girls and boys the opportunity to become welders, or have basic construction skills, carpentry, house cleaning.
	House cleaning is a huge industry.
	Teach young people before they're, you know, out of high school, how to use the right chemicals on the right floors, how to clean well, how to sanitize.
	That is something that anyone at 18 or 20 or 22 could start a business and make a living.
	And I'm not talking $8 an hour or $10 an hour.
	I'm talking, you know, $25, $30 an hour for housekeeping.
	Why aren't we giving kids the ability to learn in school and obtain a certificate of some kind to show they're not going to ruin your hardwoods, they're not going to screw up your pipes with chemicals.
	They've gone through the training, they know what to use, they know how to clean houses professionally,
	like even a Hilton type level, you know, or professional level, and give these kids an opportunity
	of coming out of high school and making good money off the bat.
	Because if they're not going to college, if they can't afford college,
	they're not inclined toward college like a lot of boys are, you know, give them the means, my God,
	and put these kids out into the world with no ability to make money.
	By the way, I probably know the answer to this, but don't you think it's outrageous
	for men who describe themselves as women to compete in women's athletics
	and destroy the competition between biologically, you know, competitive women
	on the ground that this is a self-identification of a sex or gender they don't possess?
	I really am upset about that.
	I am not familiar with all that.
	I've heard stories.
	I just have never looked into that, so I'm not quite sure what all goes on, but I think it would be probably unfair for someone who is 6'10", you know, to compete, you know, with women because women are, I mean, has there ever been a woman?
	There probably has been, but you know what I'm saying, very, very, very tall, very big, very strong men to compete with women on certain sports.
	Where size matters.
	I mean, that does seem unfair to me.
	So I don't know what sports and what, you know, it's gotten so comp, it's so political and so complicated.
	Um, but I don't know enough about that area.
	I mean, of course there's a drug, the drug, performance enhancement drugs, and those are, you know, completely unfair.
	And we've found, I was touring France and when I've seen people use that stuff.
	So that, that I think obviously isn't possibly an analogy, Yeah, well it's just one of the issues you haven't tripped over.
	not natural, so to speak.
	So I don't know about that.
	I just don't have to really comment much, but.
	Yeah, well, it's just one of the issues you haven't tripped over.
	It's out there and a very live issue.
	In the Olympics or just in professional sports or both?
	I think it's showing up in different contexts.
	You know, it's just the grossly unfair.
	I mean, we spent all this time developing women's athletics so that women and girls can compete against other women and girls.
	And now you have men who are claiming You know, to identify as women competing so that they can be victors over women where they have an obvious biological competitive edge.
	It's a disgrace in my opinion, and it's been allowed to happen.
	Yeah.
	There's another issue.
	If someone, you know, adopts, you know, a female persona just to get into a female competition, Yeah.
	That seems wrong because you know I mean there's a big controversy about this um Jenner what what's his what's his name again that oh Jenner yeah yeah it was Bruce Jenner I'm not sure it was Bruce yeah now he's uh well I and there's a controversy whether it's Christine maybe I'm I can't remember his name but um her name um but there's a controversy I just read this because you know Apparently he went he killed someone in Malibu and so he hit someone with a car in Malibu and I don't know anything about it other than what I've heard but um so and apparently he you know didn't really um you know get the kind of sentence that should have been given under those circumstances because he is so wealthy.
	Well, I mean, what's new in American society, right?
	That's just another example.
	Isn't he famous for different reasons?
	Malibu's very dangerous.
	You shouldn't walk across the highway, first of all.
	People are going way too fast.
	You know, 80, 90 is insane.
	So you should never walk part of PCH.
	There's deaths almost every year of people crossing, especially by moon shadows right there.
	It's terrible.
	Very dangerous.
	But there's a controversy whether he's actually, you know, had parts removed to become a female
	or just added things, you know?
	So then the question is, well, is, you know, I don't even know, I mean,
	people get to choose their identities apparently, but at some point, if you're competing in female sports,
	it seems like at the very least, you should have a complete female body.
	You know, otherwise it seems like- Yeah, but if you were a man and then, you know,
	had your genitals transformed, you still have all the physical athletic-
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	Yeah, yeah.
	Even if you're taking estrogen, I should think.
	Yeah, I don't know.
	You've got a fully developed adult male body and then you have some, you know... I mean, women have less muscle mass in general, I think, partly because of the testosterone.
	I mean, I think that's a difference in just...
	There are so many differences involved here.
	And among women, there's differences.
	I mean, you know, how much, how many hormones, the levels of hormones among women can vary dramatically.
	So, and that's an edge.
	You have more testosterone, let's say you're going to be leaner, you're going to have probably more muscle mass, but that's natural.
	So, but that can be manipulated too with, you know, with hormone therapy and whatnot.
	So complicated.
	I wish things were simpler sometimes.
	Does this issue about the social media giants censoring, wiping out YouTubes.
	I've had hundreds of mine have been taken down.
	I've had books banned by Amazon.
	Six of them.
	I, you know, I mean, this is outrageous because what I'm doing is bringing together experts to analyze what really happened.
	JFK, 9-11, Sandy Hook, the Boston bombing.
	They're preventing the people from learning what we have discovered.
	And you're trying to uncover the truth and really dig down into areas that, you know, people won't touch.
	And I have no ulterior motive!
	Right.
	I have no political bias.
	I'm a truth, a whole truth, nothing but the truth guy.
	Well, people will say you have a motive, whether you or not, but I always go back to Rebecca.
	Look at my track record.
	I mean, I've got 40 bucks, Dina.
	If there were bias to me, you know, it would have been obvious by now, believe me.
	I've given thousands of interviews.
	I've published thousands of blogs.
	I mean, it's just absurd to think they could make a case for bias against me.
	I mean, it would be hard press.
	But I say, let go!
	There's no question that reporters are told they can't report on things.
	There's no question that things are being hidden from us.
	I mean, Ronan Farrow suffered Considerable setbacks and just nastiness because he wanted to bring forth stories of sexual abuse.
	Rebecca Traister was told not to discuss what Harvey Weinstein did at a party when she saw him assault her boyfriend, throw him downstairs, and everything else.
	And her boss at that time said, you know, Harvey Weinstein, he's Russia.
	Don't touch the story.
	And these journalists are stuck because if they do report on these stories, they'll be fired.
	They'll lose their livelihood.
	So some will come out.
	A few came out.
	Ronan Farrow pushed and pushed and got his, you know, his stories on Harvey Weinstein were ultimately published.
	But there's, one of the things I found in both of these books, the first one on Jeffrey Epstein, the second one on Weinstein and Cosby and the Mutine movement, is that money is used to control people more than anything.
	And we're talking paychecks.
	People will lose their jobs and people can't not eat.
	They can't not pay for their children's schooling or their clothing or their whatever it is.
	And so people use the need for a paycheck to control them.
	And that's what happens to the reporters.
	Most reporters are not Ronan Farrow.
	I'm going to venture to guess that Ronan Farrow has means, family means, and he can afford, so to speak, to go out and tell the truth and kind of let Let it hit the fan.
	Other people don't have that luxury.
	So people are being squelched in silence.
	And then another thing I noticed in some of the litigation that I've seen, even universities, they will entice these, you know, these morally, you know, weak people to do their bidding, whether it's voting a certain way or whatnot, with very small amounts of money, $2,000 here, $1,000 there, $6,000 here.
	And they give them these personal employment to control them.
	And even in the academies, even in law schools.
	So using money to get people to do things is, I think, probably the number one reason why so many journalists are just not speaking out about what they see.
	They can't afford to lose their jobs.
	And with regard to an event like 9-11, although every engineer and physicist in the country knows the Twin Towers did not collapse, that it wasn't even possible for them to collapse, They have kept their mouths shut.
	in every direction, all the floors remained stationary, they were converted
	into millions of cubic yards of very fine dust, there was no pile of debris
	which of necessity would have been there had they collapsed, they have kept their
	mouths shut and I believe it's because of the universities has corrupted their
	integrity. So it wasn't the heat that caused the metal the metal beams to collapse?
	No, it was the source of energy.
	If you get into it, actually, it was a form of nuclear demolition.
	It was very sophisticated.
	This was a tube within a tube, and what you had was a nuke underneath that went up the inner tube, blew it up from the bottom up, and then the consequences blew the building apart from the top.
	It's a fascinating story.
	At the conference, you're going to hear two leading experts on the use of nukes at the Volkswagen Conspiracies Conference on the 5th and 6th of December, where you are one of my keynote speakers, and I'm so glad that you are on the program.
	And I want everyone out there to know if they go to falseflagconspiracies2020.com, falseflagconspiracies2020.com, they can review the entire program, two dozen excellent speakers, including... You should spell the program.
	Say it again.
	Spell the program.
	What is it called?
	Oh, I was giving you the link.
	The program is False Flags and Conspiracies 2020.
	False Flags?
	Yeah.
	False Flags and Conspiracies.
	Right.
	Okay, I wasn't sure.
	Okay, well, again, I don't know anything about the Twin Towers.
	I study... Yeah, well, go ahead, yeah.
	But that's something I didn't even know about.
	Of course... Yeah, well, I wasn't presuming you did.
	In fact, I was just giving you a kind of a heads up about, you know, I've done a huge amount of work.
	I founded Scholars for 9-11 Truth in 2005.
	Took off like a rocket.
	I mean, it was just huge.
	I've been told around the world to give lectures on 9-11.
	Can the public?
	It's a pay-per-view.
	Yeah, but it's very modest.
	$75 a day or two days for $100 and you get 24 world-class speakers.
	You among them, of course, where I'm just delighted you're going to be addressing your godfathers of sex abuse, Bill Cosby, Harvey Weinstein, and Jeffrey Epstein, where you've done some brilliant work.
	I think I'm going to address the judicial system and what's wrong with it and how these guys got away with it.
	Where the system needs to be, where the chinks are, where we're in the wall, where we can attack the system to make really meaningful change.
	And, you know, really get to the heart of why rape is continuing, because it needs to stop.
	And it's never going to stop the way it is, not the way the system is.
	And it's so funny, because I went to a conference, a law professor conference, it was the annual Association of American Law Schools conference.
	And this was last December.
	And I spoke about kind of the Cass Sunstein stuff, about how we need to have social norms.
	We need to use social norms in part to start rape as well.
	And I started sort of not making fun of, but sort of ostracizing a bit these men who do these things.
	And one woman raised her hand, was confident, and said, do we really want to humiliate these men for what they've
	done?
	Because isn't that kind of like the way they humiliate the victims?
	And I said, no, it's totally different.
	That's like saying, should we not call Ted Bundy a psychopathic murderer and all the things
	he is?
	Could it hurt his feelings?
	Yes, of course it could hurt his feelings, but the rapists deserve it.
	I mean, if there's ever a time to ostracize... Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	It's a question of truth.
	If that doesn't, she'll kill.
	And in my books, I kind of, I mean, there's a couple parts where I kind of make fun of him.
	Not make fun of him exactly, but more like point out.
	They're failures, because that's the last thing they want.
	They're out raping women trying to prove themselves to the world, but if you find out that Harvey Weinstein couldn't get it up, and Jeffrey Epstein had a deformed penis, and these kinds of things, I mean, it's like, oh, we should be talking about that, you know, shouldn't we let them have their privacy?
	My answer is no!
	Because these guys, first of all, we wouldn't know about their sexual problems if they weren't out raping so many women.
	Yeah.
	My position is, hey, that's part and parcel of what you did.
	Yeah.
	You look like that.
	You can expect to be exposed and discussed and to have your sexuality exposed and laid out there.
	I don't think that it's wrong to use social ostracism against a rapist.
	Right.
	But right now it's just being used against the victims and they're being, you know, they're on trial for their personality or what they wore on that night when they did nothing wrong.
	They were abusing their position to induce women to do things they would never have done save for being coerced.
	It was just outrageous.
	If this were voluntary sexual interaction between adults, we're all for it.
	But this was not.
	This was exploitative.
	One of the stories I've heard, Nina, which you might confirm or not, is that Harvey Weinstein was treating Gwyneth Paltrow as though she were a concubine.
	You know, I'm not sure what went on between the two of them.
	I've heard different stories, and it really hasn't been confirmed.
	But when she won an award, I remember her reaction, and she looked at Harvey Weinstein and thanked him.
	I think it was for Shakespeare in Love.
	I can't remember for sure, but I remember seeing that and thinking to myself... It's such a wonderful movie.
	She's made many.
	Yeah, she's good.
	I remember thinking, I wasn't quite sure what to think actually.
	There was something odd about the way she expressed her appreciation for Lawrence.
	I mean there's something odd about that too and of course Harvey Weinstein claims that he was with her and that's how she got cast and got the award and everything for the Hunger Games.
	She denies it but it's I think for all the women who came out in Hollywood and talked about what they had to do or what they did or what or got raped like Rose McGowan was raped, forcibly raped in a non-traditional sense.
	You know he forced himself to go down on her.
	That is rape though.
	I heard a thousand, ten thousand who haven't come out.
	I heard that Meryl Streep had been, as it were, an assistant to Harvey Weinstein.
	I mean, I would hate to think that.
	I don't know about that.
	Rather like Ghazan Maxwell in relation to Jeffrey Epstein.
	Yeah, I don't know.
	Meryl Streep, I think, was friends with Harvey Weinstein.
	I'm not sure.
	She seemed to stand by him through thick and through thin.
	But you know, I mean, there's all sorts of relationships out there, and it's possible that some of these relationships were truly friendship-based sexual relationships.
	I don't know.
	I don't know what went on between them.
	Oh yeah, but I'm not presuming he was having sex with her, but rather that she was facilitating his abuse of other actresses.
	Well, and this is where it gets really sticky, because when you are funneling women toward a man who can get them a role in a film, But you don't know what he's doing to them, then are you really aiding and abetting a rape?
	I don't know how much she knew, and that's the problem.
	Glenn Maxwell knew everything.
	She went and found the girls.
	She trained them.
	She trained them how to get blowjobs and things like that.
	She actually used some kind of vegetables to show the girls, young girls,
	how to do blowjobs the proper way or whatever she thought was the proper way.
	So she was absolutely 100% aiding and abetting Jeffrey Epstein.
	But that's, the people with Harvey Weinstein, some of them knew more than others.
	And that's why the board got sued for Rico and other things, because they were aware.
	They even had in their last contract with him, during his contract, a clause saying how much he would pay for all the sexual assault allegations contained in his personnel file.
	And they wanted to immunize themselves, the board members.
	They weren't worried about the next girl who's going to get raped.
	They were worried about, we don't want to pay that.
	So they made him sign a document saying he would pay if and when those cases came to And to me, boy, that's pretty cold at best.
	And I think it probably should result in civil liability, depending on what else comes out.
	If they knew what he was doing and kept him employed, knowing they were facilitating his ability to do that, because if he were not a director, if he weren't so powerful, he wouldn't be able to entice women to get into his room in the first place.
	So the board, by putting him in that position, I think played a pretty significant role in allowing the rapes to continue.
	And that's why they got sued.
	But we'll see.
	I haven't kept up on that.
	I'm not sure what happened.
	I know that they were working through the process.
	The case was dismissed, but there was leave to amend, last I heard.
	And I'm not sure if, I'm not sure if RICO was alleged in all those, but avian abetting was alleged.
	Conspiracy theories were alleged for joint and several liability.
	But Rose McGowan sued, he, Ryan Steinan's lawyers for RICO, for Racketeering,
	including Lisa Bloom, who's Laurie Allred's daughter.
	And I think David Boyce got sued too, because they were facilitating these private spies
	following Rose McGowan, making friends with her, tricking her and getting her manuscript
	that wasn't published yet for Brave, the book Brave.
	And that is pretty, lawyers should not be doing that.
	And she said they should be disbarred.
	I put in my book, she's right.
	Rose McGowan is right.
	They should be disbarred for that.
	You can't facilitate that kind of fraud.
	But you know what?
	The bars never disbar anybody, Harvey.
	You have to basically steal client funds.
	Unless you steal client funds, you're probably not going to be disbarred no matter what else you do.
	That's wrong.
	That needs to change.
	Back to my website idea.
	You know, if enough of this information came out, because it's the same guy in Seattle who's constantly, you know, taking fake photographs on properties and You know, creating these fake adverse possession claims.
	I know all about him.
	I dealt with him.
	And, you know, he's got a reputation now, but I'm saying, how many times do you think he did it?
	How many hundreds of times has he done this?
	And if there were a website where all the victims could get on, boy, the bar would be under a lot of pressure to disbar him.
	But when I submitted my complaint, including evidence that he defrauded the insurance company into paying, you know, claims on a title policy when there was nothing, there was no There was no title claim in there.
	Specifically, he said that his client's title report contained property they didn't contain, and the title company could have seen that anyway.
	I don't know how he got them to pay, but they paid hundreds of thousands of dollars on that claim, in attorney's fees.
	And I gave the State Bar of Washington all that information.
	Do you think they did anything with it?
	They sat on it for like months and months and months, and then they said, oh, it's insufficient evidence.
	Insufficient evidence?
	It was enough to convict him!
	I mean, this is what they say, oh, insufficient evidence.
	I had to stack this big of documents, okay?
	Excerpts, letters he wrote, the descriptions of the land, all that stuff.
	So the bottom line is, we need to have a private system of enforcing, you know, the rules of discipline against lawyers and doctors and dentists.
	Dentists are known for being problematic.
	There's a lot of dental Again, you can't get them from other people.
	I have a friend in New York City whose dentist attempted to assassinate him!
	I'll tell you that story!
	Unbelievable!
	There's a government ring of public assassins who are dentists.
	They perform acts on behalf of the government.
	It's outrageous, Dena.
	But you have been such a fabulous guest, Dena.
	I tell you, I just love everything you're talking about.
	It's a joy to have you here.
	And I'm so delighted you'll be on the program at False Flags and Conspiracies 2020, 5 to 6 December.
	For anyone who wants to check it out, there's a report about it right now on my blog at jamesfetzer.org, or you can go directly to the website falseflagconspiracies2020.com, check it out, 5th and 6th December, 12 speakers Saturday, 12 speakers Sunday, sensational lineup, including This wonderful woman.
	And Dina, I just can't thank you enough.
	It's just been terrific.
	Oh, thanks for having me.
	It was fun.
	It's always fun to talk to you.
	Yeah, well, you're a real delight and an encyclopedia of knowledge about issues, esoteric and not.
	It's fabulous.
	This is Jim Fetzer, the Conspiracy Guy on The Fetz Presents, thanking you for joining us for our conversation with Dina Pollard Sachs, who's quite a marvelous person and a terrific guest.
	Thank you all for being here.

▲