All Episodes
Previous Next
July 11, 2023 - Dennis Prager Show
01:11:36
Living Alone
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Dennis Prager here.
Thanks for listening to the Daily Dennis Prager Podcast.
To hear the entire three hours of my radio show, commercial-free, every single day, become a member of PragerTopia.
You'll also get access to 15 years' worth of archives, as well as the daily show prep.
subscribe at prager-topia.com Hi everybody, I'm Dennis Prager and this is Whoa!
This is Monday, so I hope you had a good weekend.
I've been saying that every Monday since I began broadcasting.
By the way, I sincerely do hope you had a good weekend.
Although I will admit there is a piece of data that just literally, in the last few minutes, I became aware of, which suggests that...
As I've always thought in any event, not everybody has a good weekend.
This piece of data, and this doesn't suggest that it's true for everybody in this category either, that they don't have a good weekend.
However, it's an issue.
Record number of Americans living alone.
In a record high for the United States, nearly 30% of American households have only a single person living in them.
One out of three Americans lives alone.
Does this give the data?
Yeah, look at this.
For those of you who mock, as I have been mocked by the left, for speaking about making America great again, they say, America was never great.
Well, I don't know what that means.
Great in comparison to what?
Was it great in comparison to other countries?
I think it was.
Was it great in comparison to perfection?
No, it wasn't.
But you compare people to people, not to images, and likewise for countries.
Clearly, there was a terrible racial problem, like Jim Crow, for example, in the 1940s.
So that obviously has to be thrown into the mix.
However, there were dominant values that were good.
You know what the percentage of Americans who lived alone in 1948?
Eight.
Four times as many Americans, percentage-wise, Not absolute numbers.
It would be through the roof, but that wouldn't be fair because there are so many more Americans today.
Percentage-wise, we have gone from 8 to 30, nearly four times as many people are living alone.
1970, it was 18%.
So, this is approaching double.
Still think a woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle?
Was there a single intelligent thing said in the 1960s on the left?
How about the 70s?
How about the 70s, my producer asks.
How about yesterday?
To be consistently wrong, you would think it takes an effort.
This is an epidemic in the United States.
By the way, not just the United States.
Japan, take a look, see if you could look up the statistic.
Percentage of Japanese living alone.
Do you know, I was reading, and I read it to you at the time, it was about a year ago, that So many Japanese live alone that there are times when people don't even know somebody is living in a certain apartment or house until the horrible odor of a decaying body alerts people to the fact that somebody has died in that home or that
house or apartment.
It is a stunning social change, said Eric Kleinenberg, a sociologist at New York University.
I came to see it as the biggest demographic change in the last century that we fail to recognize and take seriously.
31% in Japan.
Ah, that was bingo for me.
31% in Japan, the same thing.
Alright, here's one for you.
Take a look at Israel, and I'll tell people if we can get a number why.
Oh, I'll tell you now, in fact.
In Israel, there is a carryover of a religious ethic from Judaism to have a family and to get married.
There is enormous social pressure, and social pressure is everything, as I've come to realize, for good and for bad, for most people.
There is social pressure in Israel to get married.
social pressure to have children.
It's...
Any...
Is there any?
There's no data for it?
Oh, it's too bad.
I'd love to.
I'm going to ask my Israeli friends for that.
That would be very interesting to find out.
I think it demonstrates your point, though.
What demonstrates my point?
That there was no data?
I mean, because nobody bothered even checking.
That's a good point.
And I think that's probably fair.
The rising number of Americans living alone.
This is from American greatness, but it is taken from the hill.
Was that my computer or yours?
Mine, right.
The rising number of Americans living alone is seen as a major transformation rather than a temporary trend.
Oh, God, that's sad.
I'll tell you part of it.
It's the neglect of the question, what are the consequences?
An editor at the Jerusalem Post, which has published me on occasion, has sent me a piece he wrote.
And he had a very...
An interesting, good analogy for people's neglecting consequences.
Because he was talking about people who say Israel should withdraw from the West Bank and make a Palestinian state there.
And he said that what they're doing is engaging in the Coca-Cola fallacy.
What is the Coca-Cola fallacy?
Those who believe it really tastes good, I'll drink all I want, and don't ask, what are the consequences?
I like that.
The Coca-Cola, he didn't say fallacy, I did, but I'll get the word.
He analogized it to those who don't ask, well, what are the consequences of drinking Coca-Cola?
What are the consequences of Israel withdrawing from the West Bank?
I'll tell you what they are.
The West Bank would be taken over by Hamas.
And then they would be able to be so close to Israel, they could throw missiles.
They wouldn't have to eject them.
What is Israel at its narrowest point?
It's a few miles, seven miles between the West Bank and the Mediterranean Sea.
I'll never forget the story I was told in Israel once of a wealthy Australian.
who was taken on an air tour of the West Bank.
When he came back, he said, my ranch is as big as the West Bank.
Did you ever hear that story?
Yeah.
It's really awesome.
People don't understand what we're talking about.
So people don't ask, oh, gee, ow!
It's much more than seven miles.
It's more than seven miles?
How much is it?
Areas around 20 miles?
I don't think it's three digits.
It's not three digits.
No, it's not three digits.
Okay, so tell me what it is.
The narrowest width...
Tel Aviv to the West Bank is 52 kilometers or 32 miles.
So Tel Aviv to the what?
To the West Bank.
To the West Bank.
And Tel Aviv is on the Mediterranean.
It's 32 miles?
Yeah.
Okay.
32 miles.
That is the width of Israel at a certain point.
The Mediterranean...
and the West Bank.
People don't ask when they're young...
It's one of the great fallacies of life.
What are the consequences?
How will I feel about this decision?
What type of life do I want to lead?
Stage one thinking.
Stage one thinking, as Tom Sowell would put it.
That's right.
Coca-Cola thinking is a good way to put it.
Yeah.
Let's just think about career, not marriage.
Because it's fun when you go home alone and you have a career.
Natural disasters.
Airline cancellations and runway near-misses, supply chain issues, inflation, rising interest rates, and sky-high government debt.
This is Dennis Prager for AmFedCoin and Bullion.
There's a lot in the news about what consumers cannot control, so let's talk about what you can control.
You can control how you choose to invest and protect your wealth.
That's why I choose to do business with Nick Grovich and his company AmFedCoin and Bullion.
Now is a great time to own tangible assets like gold, silver, and platinum.
With over 41 years' experience and tens of thousands of satisfied clients, Nick will help you make informed decisions and show you smart choices, which have been proven winners time and time again.
Amphetcoin and Bullion?
We'll sell you the right types of precious metals to get the maximum value for your money.
Take control of your investments like I did.
Call Nick and his team at Amphet Coin& Bullion at 800-221-7694.
Americanfederal.com.
I call on you, my friend.
A helping hand you land in my time of need.
Dennis Prager here.
This piece of data has struck me as worthy of opening the show with.
30% of Americans are living alone.
Let's see, what is one-third of...
Wait, do you realize when I give you the number, it's more frightening even?
There are 350 million Americans approximately.
So we're talking about 115 million Americans are living alone?
I guess you have to subtract kids, right?
Why do you subtract kids?
It remains the same number.
Well, the truth is, if you subtract kids, it's even more.
If you take kids out of the equation, the percentage is even higher.
Because kids aren't living, no kids are living alone.
Despite home alone.
So, we're talking about over 100 million people in the United States are living alone?
Wow.
Here's another piece of data that I brought you last week.
50%, let's see, no, no, that's not the number I want.
Here it is.
From 1950 to 1980, the percentage of Americans who were unmarried, in other words, who had never married by the age of 40, Remain consistent at about 10%.
10% of Americans by age 40 had never married.
By 2021, so that's 31 years later, no, no, 41 years later, sorry, that number had jumped to a record high of 25%.
So let's look at that number.
A quarter of Americans had never been married.
Now, if they include children, it's even higher because they have to do a quarter of adults.
But it doesn't matter.
A quarter of Americans.
No, sorry.
Yes, a quarter of Americans.
So that's 80 million Americans by age 40 have never been married.
When I was in college, I read George Gilder's books.
Sexual Suicide and Naked Nomads, two of the books of the ten books that most influenced my life.
Naked Nomads was about single men in America.
I even believe that that was the subtitle, though I'm not certain.
And he noted that the most consistent characteristic of violent crime is that the perpetrators are single men.
Right?
If you hear about a murderer, a random murderer, let's say, or a mugging murderer, you don't expect to hear as a wife and two kids.
It happens, but we're shocked, actually.
I am, when I read that.
Stupid, truly stupid people.
Most of them have PhDs.
Have so captured the New York Times, Columbia University, the elites, the American Psychological Association, truly stupid people.
Now, stupid doesn't mean that they don't have a good brain.
Stupid means that what they write and speak is stupid.
And you get stupider the more you go to college and graduate school.
These moronic ideas from the elite, many of whom don't even live by it.
Most of the elite marry.
That's the irony.
Do not do it.
It's the Governor Newsom.
It's the Gavin Newsom syndrome.
You must shut your restaurant.
You cannot go into a restaurant.
I can.
You must be masked.
I don't have to be.
Nancy Pelosi syndrome.
So they're not just stupid, the left elites.
They're despicable.
We do not take our own advice.
We marry.
We have children.
We don't wear masks.
We eat in restaurants.
But you can't do any of that.
Not can't.
There's no ban on marriage.
I should be precise.
You can do it.
But why would you bother?
A woman's place is in the White House.
Right?
Not her house, the White House.
Like, that's really important.
It's going to really help women if there's a woman president.
As much as it has helped blacks to have all these black mayors, has it helped one black human being in the United States, all having all these black mayors?
Again, it's a stupid idea.
If it comes from the left, it is always a stupid idea.
Always.
I don't know how they can be so consistently wrong.
I don't.
It's a phenomenon.
If they're ever right, it's because they've actually adopted a conservative idea.
It'll help you if your group is in political power.
Really?
How so exactly?
1-8 Prager 7-7-6 Another factor that may contribute to this rise in single-person homes is women entering the workforce, foregoing their long-time roles throughout history as stay-at-home wives and mothers.
Now, who would want to do that?
You want to read a truly depressing Marxist-oriented book?
Read Betty Friedan's The Feminine Mystique.
I did last year.
I'm old enough, and I started public life young enough to have actually debated Betty Friedan.
There is a video of it, and I have to try to find it.
Black and white.
She walked off the stage, said I was a male chauvinist piglet.
Just when you thought it couldn't get any better, Mike Lindell, with my pillow?
is launching the MyPillow 2.0.
When Mike invented MyPillow, it had everything you could ever want in a pillow.
Now, nearly 20 years later, he discovered a new technology that makes it even better.
The MyPillow 2.0 has the patented adjustable fill of the original MyPillow and now with a brand new fabric that is made with a temperature-regulating thread.
The MyPillow 2.0 is the softest, smoothest, and coolest pillow you'll ever own.
For my listeners, the MyPillow 2.0 is buy one, get one free offer with promo code Prager.
MyPillow 2.0 temperature regulating technology is 100% made in the USA and comes with a 10-year warranty and a 60-day money-back guarantee.
Just go to MyPillow.com and click on the Radio Listener's Square.
To the buy one, get one free offer, enter promo code PRAGER or call 800-761-6302 to get your MyPillow 2.0 now.
It's hard to know what to open up any hour with.
There is so much competition.
The problem is, most of the competition is between which is the most absurd story of the day.
And I have to tell you, the competition is intense.
That's what happens.
People are bored.
Here's an example for you.
If this were printed by a satire site, people would say, that's pretty funny.
And in fact, it's actually real.
Lord's Prayer opening may be problematic, says the Archbishop of York at the General Synod of the church, of his church.
I assume it's, yeah, Church of England.
Anglican Church, presumably.
The Archbishop of York has suggested that the opening words of the Lord's Prayer, recited by Christians all over the world for 2,000 years, may be, quote, problematic.
Why?
I'm trying to give you time to guess.
Why might the opening words of the Lord's Prayer be problematic?
Alright.
Give us the buzzer.
Time is up.
In his opening address to a meeting of the Church of England's ruling body, the General Synod, Stephen Cottrell dwelt on the words, Our Father.
The text of the prayer, based on Matthew 6, 9-13, and Luke 11, 2-4.
I know the word Father is problematic for those whose experience of earthly fathers has been destructive and abusive, and for all of us who have labored rather too much from an oppressively A patriarchal grip on life, he said.
Huh.
Wow.
Our Father who art in heaven.
So what should we say?
What should Christians say?
Our parent who art in heaven?
Our art teacher who art in heaven?
Our non-binary deity.
Our non-binary deity.
Good one.
The NBD. Our NBD who art in heaven.
Well, what was it some group also did?
I think the Anglican Church.
They also have come up with a...
What do they call it?
Non-sexist translation of the Bible so that God has no gender.
So they actually literally and deliberately mistranslate the Bible because nothing is holy on the left.
That's the whole point.
What a leftist thinks is holy.
End of issue.
That is the way they go through life.
I think it, therefore I do it.
I think that God should not be called he, so I will mistranslate the Bible and drop he.
But this is a new low because they're bored.
As I said, they need a cause.
The old causes bore them.
Our Father, let's see, it troubles the Archbishop of York.
For two reasons.
You might have had a bad relationship with your father on earth.
And it is...
Did he say sexist?
What does he say?
What's his issue again?
Let's see.
And for all those who have labored...
Oh, oppressively patriarchal grip on life.
Yeah, that's what we really, really have too much of in our societies.
Patriarchy.
That's the worst.
Too many men are still thinking, I want to take care of a family.
You don't want that.
And they're getting not that.
That's exactly right.
Well, let's see.
Let's say you had a bad relationship with your father.
Wouldn't that argue for doubling down on calling God Father?
Now you can have a father in heaven because you had a lousy one or had none on earth?
Isn't that good?
Not on the left.
Remember, the left is always wrong, unless it has a conservative idea.
After Cottrell's speech, Canon Dr. Chris Sugden, chair of the conservative Anglican mainstream group, pointed out that in the Bible, Jesus urged people to pray to our Father.
He said, is the Archbishop of York saying Jesus was wrong?
Of course he's saying that.
He's a left-wing Christian.
Meaning that the left-wing...
Is what he is.
But he makes his living as a Christian.
His values are left.
His living is Christian.
His income.
Seems to be emblematic of the approach of some church leaders to take their cues from culture rather than scripture.
Yes, or as I put it, you have fear of God or fear of the New York Times.
Reverend Christina Rees, who campaigned for female bishops, said Cottrell had, quote, put his finger on an issue that's a really live issue for Christians and has been for many years.
She added, the big question is, do we really believe that God believes that male human beings bear his image more fully and accurately than women?
The answer is absolutely not.
I told you they're stupid.
So let me understand something.
If you say our Father in Heaven, you believe that male human beings bear His image more fully and accurately than women?
Is that what it means?
Is there a single person who believes that?
Well, I'll tell you, she sort of makes the argument that men are wiser.
But it was a man who came up with the original stupid comment, so I guess she doesn't make that argument.
In February, the Church of England said it would consider whether to stop referring to God as He after priests asked to be allowed to use gender-neutral terms instead.
It's the elite.
That's the way it is, the elite.
They have a commission on gendered language.
They're bored.
This is what I mean.
Secularism plus affluence equals boredom.
Boredom leads to leftism.
It is always the case.
They need a cause because they dropped traditional causes.
Marriage, church, family.
They've dropped that.
So they need a new one.
So now there's a commission on gendered language.
Oh, is that important?
Because we know that if they stop referring to God as He, it will definitely bring more people to church.
That's really what's stopping them.
The other week, I'll give a living example.
Sean McConnell.
He did not go to church last Sunday, and I asked him why.
And he said, because of gendered language.
Yeah.
So I'm living with somebody, as it were.
Yep.
The gendered language obstacle to church attendance.
You think one person in England...
Will now be moved to go to church regularly if they no longer refer to God as He?
One?
Back in a moment.
It's really quite something, isn't it?
This is what they're...
They're worried about in the Anglican Church and in all of the liberal churches.
Saying, our Father in Heaven.
Does anybody say, does anybody call his or her father or mother parent?
If you talk to somebody about your father or mother, do you say, yeah, I... My parent and I, we went shopping yesterday.
Does anybody say that?
Of course not.
It's like nobody says fetus if a woman wants to give birth.
Hey, how's the fetus?
The manipulation of language by the left is one of its greatest achievements.
Our parent in heaven.
Oh, God, that so warms my heart.
Long Beach, California, and Bob, hello.
Yeah, Dennis, I have a question.
Why would God even have a sex, since sex has relevancy only within the realm of sexual reproduction?
The fact that they ascribe a sex to him is just further evidence that man created God, not God creating man.
Yeah, well, I know you won't read it, but I wrote a very long essay in my Genesis commentary on why God is referred to as He.
I know why.
I just told you why.
You don't know why.
It's what you think.
So, I would like to read that essay.
How would it take?
Five minutes?
I think it's worth it.
I have to dig it up.
It is really worth it.
However, it will take me a moment.
I defend at length the idea that it is a brilliant idea to refer to God as He.
Just for the record, in light of the last call, I... Constantly note that one of the massive achievements of the Hebrew Bible was the desexualization of God.
God does not procreate.
God does not marry.
God does not have a girlfriend.
God does not have a lover.
All of these things were universal.
The God of the Bible has no sex.
And has, in both senses of the word, God has no sex, and God has no, is not active in sex.
The desexualization of religion is massive.
Oh, this is interesting.
The Catholic Education Resource Center?
Uh, they reprinted it?
Or was this, uh...
Okay, yeah.
Yeah, no, no, I'll get it.
You have to get it from the Kindle version or the hardcover version of my book.
But I'm very happy to see that the Catholic...
Well, all right, let's see.
So this is abbreviated.
The most obvious example is God is referred to as He.
Why did the Bible do this?
Well, here's the answer.
Because the Bible is preoccupied with making a kinder, less violent, more just world.
If you share these goals, and I suspect you do, then you'll have to agree the Bible made the right decision.
Before I explain, I need to add an obvious caveat.
The God of the Bible is neither male nor female.
God transcends gender.
What I'm talking about here is why God is depicted in male terms in the Bible.
Gender-wise, the Bible had three choices.
Masculine, he.
Feminine, she.
Or neuter, it.
Those who object to the he, like my last caller, who knows why it was done, because...
Mortal men made this all up.
By the way, even if mortal men made it all up, that doesn't mean that it was a bad decision.
What is better than he, she or it?
Those are your only choices, correct?
We can readily rule out neuter.
For one thing, neuter nouns don't exist in Hebrew, the language of the Old Testament, which, after all, first introduced as God to us.
For another, the biblical God is a personal God to whom we can and must relate.
We cannot relate to, let alone obey or love, an it.
Aside from the language issue, the Bible depicts God in masculine terms because 1. The Hebrew Bible's primary concern is making a good world.
2. A good world can only be achieved by making good people.
3. The people who commit nearly all the world's violence are males.
Therefore, it is in both men's and women's interests to depict God in the masculine.
Here's why.
Without a father or some other male rule-giver, young men are likely to do great harm.
If there is no male authority figure to give a growing boy rules, it is very difficult for him to control his wilder impulses.
As President Barack Obama told an audience in 2008, Commenting on that speech, Dr. Alvin Poussin, a psychiatrist with Harvard Medical School, confirmed these statistics.
The absence of fathers corresponds with a host of socialills, including dropping out of school and serving time in jail.
Hi everybody, Dennis Prager here.
Sure.
This will probably prove to be one of the most important interviews I've ever conducted.
Which puts my guest on the spot.
Not that I can think of it.
Maybe I shouldn't have said that.
But that is how I look at it.
John Strand is a professional artist and activist on behalf of values that many of you and I share.
He's from Los Angeles, California.
Currently the host of Frontline Flash, and he's creative director at America's Frontline Doctors, one of the most important groups in the United States, and certainly one of the most important medical groups, doctors who actually believe in medicine and in truth.
It's frightening for me to even have to say that there would be the need for such a group.
You would think that doctors are committed to truth and medicine.
And it turns out that doctors are as committed to it as any other group.
So if you think most professors are committed to truth, then you probably believe that of doctors and lawyers and anybody else.
Such is the human condition.
John Strand was in the January 6th events in Washington, D.C. Why he was there, we'll find out.
And he has recently been found guilty of, we'll find out what, and will be going to prison shortly.
I have come to know him, and I can say, without any compromise, one of the most remarkable people I know, because he is so committed to truth.
And to living the life of a conscience, of a good conscience.
John Strand, welcome to the Dennis Prager Show.
Thank you, Dennis.
It is an honor to be here.
Truly.
Thank you.
Thank you for saying that.
So let's get the background so people understand what is happening in your life.
What were you doing in Washington on January 6th?
I was assisting the founder of America's Frontline Doctors, Dr. Simone Gould, and I was traveling with her on an East Coast speaking tour.
At that time, this is early 2021, and the coronavirus chaos was still at pretty high peak levels, and a lot of people were needing and wanting answers, and Dr. Gould was trying to deliver those.
So she had a scheduled event in D.C. the day before on the 5th at a rally with a government-approved permit and a scheduled speech alongside of Representatives Paul Gosar, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Lauren Boebert, and others also at a rally with a government-approved permit.
So that is why I was there on the ground on January 6th, and that is the sum total of what I was doing.
And why was she there?
She was there.
To deliver that speech that she was scheduled to give weeks in advance for a rally with a government-approved permit.
To give in the Capitol, outside of the Capitol?
Just outside.
Section 8. It's the northeast corner.
So she had a permit to give a talk.
You were there, in effect, to help her and guard her.
Yes, sir.
There was a rally group that had a permit, and they invited her to speak at it.
Right.
So how did she and or you end up inside the Capitol?
Crowd chaos and confusion, essentially, is how.
The key interesting point, well, there's many, but one is that we arrived on the grounds around 2 p.m.
to give the speech, to find the stage and get on with the show, so to speak.
And it was at that moment, at 2 p.m., with tens of thousands of people streaming in and hundreds of thousands of people behind them en route.
It was at that moment that we were told via someone in the chain line that we'd followed there, oh, I heard that they canceled the speeches.
Which is sort of like planning the Super Bowl a year in advance, spending all the money, flying all the tickets to get there, navigating traffic through the stadium of 100,000 people, finding your seat, finally getting into your seat five minutes before the game starts.
And the announcer says, so sorry, folks, we're going to have to cancel the Super Bowl this year.
We'll see you next year.
You'd have a stadium full of chaos.
Who canceled it?
I have no idea.
To this day?
To no idea.
So how do you know it was canceled?
Because there was no stage available and no one started speaking.
That's fascinating.
You don't know to this day who canceled it?
No.
So as of 2 p.m.
or 1.53, you assumed everything was normal.
There was no indication otherwise.
That Dr. Gold would give a speech outside the Capitol and you'd go home.
Yeah, that was the plan.
Right.
Too bad the plan did not materialize.
I think other people had other plans.
Why don't you say what you think?
Well, I'll say that I think the evidence is abundant and abundantly clear.
Including the admission of their own written statements under oath in court documents that the United States federal government employed and inserted undercover operatives that were acting as agent provocateurs.
Those are their own words and their own written statement.
To do what?
Well, they didn't say exactly what their objective was, I suppose.
What happened is what happened.
Right, of course.
But provocateurs provoke.
Yes.
So what do you think they were there to provoke?
Entrance into the Capitol?
Yes.
And your evidence for that is?
So the very first breach of the building was on the west side, which I was not ever on the west side and I never saw or felt or heard anything related to that area.
On that side and prior to the time when I arrived at the east side, I don't remember exactly what time, but it's a well-documented fact, whatever time it was, the very first breach of the building, the very first entry by outsiders,
was a tactical group in an obvious military-esque tactical gear, all black, masked in coordinated formation that broke a window, crawled through the window, and then opened an adjacent door from the inside and then opened an adjacent door from the inside to allow access.
So those are clearly undercover operatives.
They're hiding their faces.
They're acting in an organized fashion, in a tactical fashion.
Was that Antifa?
Was that FBI undercover agents?
Yes, probably.
But I'll tell you what it was not.
was the million normal American patriots that showed up that day simply with the intention of attending speeches and rallies and gathering in solidarity to voice their First Amendment right to speak their concerns.
So let me understand. - Good.
First of all, did you see any of these hooded figures?
Oh, at the time, no.
At the time, as you mentioned, everything seemed entirely normal to me until just after 2 o'clock.
And then what happened?
Well, at 2 o'clock, in the moment that we realized apparently the speeches were canceled, but we still weren't quite sure because the audience was there and the speakers were there, or at least one of them was, and we sort of paused to assess what was going on, see if people in our party could perhaps get additional communication to confirm if and when the speeches would be happening somewhere else or what was going on.
It was confusing.
But to just cancel it at the moment you're supposed to start.
Didn't really make sense, and the people were there.
Cell phones were very ineffective.
You'll hear this commonly from anyone that was there on the ground that day, that many phones could not get messages or calls in or out at all, and if you could, it was difficult.
So there was, I don't know, there was over a million people for sure, so there were a lot of cell phones, but it also seemed like there might have been interference technologically.
So, shortly after 2 o'clock, the crowd shifted towards the steps.
So the permit that was obtained by the rally group that invited Dr. Gould to speak was for Section 8, which is the northeast corner of that area.
A lot has been made that the government claims the entire plaza was a restricted area, and therefore it's a criminal offense to have been standing in the plaza, which is frankly absurd to suggest that people would understand that.
The plaza is open to the public on a daily basis.
People walk through, bike through, take lunch, etc.
It's a common public square area.
They're claiming that that was a trespassing issue?
Yes.
I'm speaking with John Strand, who was found guilty by a Washington, D.C. court with regard to January 6th.
He pleaded not guilty, and that is one of the reasons...
That they were particularly annoyed with him.
The reason he pleaded or pled not guilty is that he was not guilty.
Correct.
We will return.
John Strand is...
Headed to a prison.
I've never spoke to a man headed to prison before, I don't think.
John Strand, in my view, is a political prisoner in the United States.
That the United States has political prisoners is something in my wildest dreams, or nightmares to be precise, I would not have ever thought I would say.
Wherever the left takes power, political prisoners follow.
Dissent is squashed.
It's inevitable that it started in the French Revolution, to the Russian Revolution, and to any place the left takes power, whether it's Arizona State University, where you realize, folks, the people who invited me and Charlie Kirk are now fired.
In fact, the whole center has been closed down, the center at ASU that invited us.
I'll have more to say about that another time.
John Strand entered the Capitol on January 6th.
He was there to help Dr. Simone Gold of America's Frontline Doctors, herself one of the courageous human beings in the country and a great doctor.
She was there to give a speech.
She speaks all over the country.
He was there to help guard her and assist her, as he has been doing for quite some time.
And she was supposed to give a speech outside the Capitol, scheduled, I assume, weeks in advance, right?
At least, yeah.
And then all of a sudden you found that it was dropped, it was canceled, and then...
The events transpired.
So let's talk about those events.
Why did you end up in a place you didn't think you would end up in?
That is the U.S. Capitol.
Right.
The reason that I ended up inside the building, in my view, is that there was coordinated, strategized activity prior to cause that to happen.
So I mentioned the group in tactical gear that made the first entry and allowed everyone else to subsequently get inside the building.
That was planned in advance.
It's just very clear when you watch the evidence.
So who planned that?
Who intended for people to gain unauthorized access inside of the building?
I know I didn't.
I know the thought never even crossed my mind.
I don't think it crossed the mind of most people that were there because that wasn't on the agenda, so to speak.
By the way, forgive me.
That's really important for people who are intellectually honest to acknowledge.
People did not go to the Capitol to enter the Capitol.
Of course not.
You know, that's very important.
It's like it's one of those gigantic truths that is never noted.
They did not go there to enter the Capitol.
They went there to demonstrate in front of the Capitol.
Exactly right.
Exactly right.
So when the crowd shifted from the plaza towards the steps, It really just seemed to me that that was the only other thing to do other than pack up and go home.
And they clearly weren't doing that.
I mean, it was 2 o'clock.
The day was scheduled to go on for hours.
So were you personally shocked that people were getting into the Capitol?
Well, when you say in, you mean inside.
Inside.
At that point, yes, I thought it was entirely bizarre.
But that took about 27 minutes.
Because I got around to that area roughly 2 p.m.-ish.
And I fell through the door at 2.27 p.m.
So in that span of time, things changed.
Bizarrely.
So for the first probably roughly half of that time, it was just people walking up the steps, filling the space, waving flags, singing songs, just being there.
It was pretty standard.
Protest type of posture and environment.
It was like a Mosh Padetta concert in the sense that people were excited to get up on the steps and the balconies, so people were pressing for the best possible position to get.
And like I said, tens of thousands of people within minutes and hundreds of thousands of people behind them coming in.
So the crowd was growing moment by moment quickly.
That was a large and energetic crowd, and they all wanted to be present.
So Dr. Gold decided she would try to gain their attention by basically getting into the mix of the crowd, and I tried to guide her towards the right-hand side where there was a balcony where perhaps she could gain visibility.
And we pushed and tried to make our way that direction for a few minutes, but we just couldn't reach it.
The crowd was already too thick and too full.
So we just found ourselves kind of halfway between the balcony and the door, and then the crowd started.
Pushing towards the door, which is the only place where there were any uniformed police officers at all.
There were, I don't know, a handful, four?
Maybe there had been six, but I think a couple had left.
Was there any voice in you that thought, gee, I'm not only surprised, but is this legal?
I didn't really have any question of the legality of people standing on the steps.
No, no, entering.
I'm talking about entering.
Oh, yeah, no, but they hadn't entered yet.
I see.
So the first 15 minutes was just filling the space, engaging in the protest, and us being in that circle, in that mosh pit.
Because after a few moments of that...
I felt like it would have been best to try to get out of that space, out of that environment, only because I didn't understand that there was any other purpose.
People were standing on the steps.
Some were pushing on the doors or looking inside of the windows of the doors, but that's just a natural thing to do if you're standing next to doors.
I still didn't have any understanding that anyone was going to enter the doors because they were clearly closed.
And I had no thought that anyone expected them to be opened.
Right.
And then what happened?
Well, then what happened was, again, like I said, we were pressed by a lot of people, so I couldn't really move or get Dr. Gold out of that environment.
But I was wondering and hoping that police officers more, much more, would come to that area and direct traffic so that we wouldn't be crushed up on the steps.
And then instead of that assistance that I imagined the police officers would provide to the crowd, they instead attacked the crowd.
And this happened noticeably at one moment when a flashbang went off and we all instinctively flinched because we felt like we were under attack, because we were.
And that flashbang, it sounds like a bomb.
So, you know, for civilians that aren't expecting that to happen, you think that there are guns or bombs going off.
You don't know.
All right, hold the thought there because we have to take a break.
With John Strand, who was headed to a prison later this month, actually, shortly.
Back in a moment.
Back to John Strand, who is headed to a prison in Florida in about 10 days.
July 25th.
And...
He was in the Capitol on January 6th.
He went there solely to help and protect Dr. Simone Gold of America's Frontline Doctors, who was scheduled to give a speech outside.
So I'm afraid that I'll miss some of the really critical things about you and about what happened.
So you ended up in the Capitol.
Okay, so a sort of staccato-ass question.
Sure.
Okay.
Well, I guess we'll begin sort of later on and go backwards.
What were you charged with having done putting you on trial?
The big charge was a 20-year prison felony, Title 18, Code 1512, colloquially referred to as obstruction of justice.
The actual title of the statute, if you look it up, is Witness Tampering.
And the argument is that people had the knowing, mindful intent to obstruct the government from proceeding with its business of certifying the 2020 election.
So how did that pertain to you?
What did you do to upset the election?
Participating in a group effort to obstruct justice and prevent the government from fulfilling us.
Did you hit anybody?
No.
The only person I touched was Dr. Gold.
Were you charged?
Did the prosecution even imply you were violent?
No.
They admitted as much during the trial and during the sentencing.
So, truly, your mere presence is a theoretical 20-year term.
That's...
The argument they seem to be making.
Right.
But they offered you a way out of that.
They did.
They offered me a single misdemeanor plea deal instead of a 20-year felony and four misdemeanors, totaling to 23 years of prison.
And what was the misdemeanor charge that they offered you?
Entering and remaining in a restricted building or grounds.
I'm laughing out of bitterness because I really want to cry.
Now, 90...
4.7% of humanity would have taken it.
You did not take the misdemeanor plea agreement.
Why?
Because it's a lie.
I know that this is true because when it was offered to him, we discussed this.
Dr. Gold, my wife, and John.
The arguments were very powerful.
John, what the hell?
Plead guilty to trivia.
And what would have happened?
What would your sentence have been?
Likely a week or a month.
So you hear, this is what the government said.
If you plead not guilty, we'll throw a potential 20-year sentence at you.
If you plead guilty to this one misdemeanor, you'll be in there for a couple of days or a couple of weeks.
Is that correct?
That's correct.
And you didn't accept the plea agreement because, and I remember this because we discussed it.
Because you would be pleading guilty to something you didn't do and are not guilty of.
That's right.
And that violated your conscience.
It did.
I know this, folks, for a fact because we were present at dinners discussing this.
And I have to say, you're a rare, beautiful human being because You rather suffer than lie?
Yes.
I'd rather suffer than see my country destroyed by lies.
That's pretty powerful.
So, they offered what evidence for all the...
All the misdemeanors, you said four.
Was there any felony you were indicted on or convicted on?
Yes, I was convicted of 1512. Oh, you were convicted of 1512. That is the 20-year felony.
So how come you're not sentenced to that?
I am.
So the 20-year felony is a maximum potential penalty of 20 years.
Each misdemeanor was a year or six months in prison.
So that adds up to about 23. Yes, he did.
John Strand.
An American political prisoner.
So it's painful for me to be in the presence of John Strand because he's going to prison in a couple of weeks.
Because he entered, nobody...
Again, I want to repeat, you have never been accused of any violence, correct?
Correct.
Nor...
Are there any videos of you that we know of anyway?
So the video you should watch is at johnstrand.com.
So if you visit that at the very top, there is a 14-minute video playing.
And it's not to be missed.
It is the entirety of my 48-minute journey through the Capitol with certain portions accelerated for time and shows you exactly what I did start to finish.
Johnstrand.com.
You should all absolutely go there.
So the government said to him, just plead guilty on a little nothing misdemeanor of what?
Entering a public place?
Entering and remaining in a restricted building.
Restricted building, yeah.
It won't even be a felony on your record.
It's just the thing.
You'll be a few months or we'll throw everything at you and you could serve 20 years.
That is, by the way, that is a classic example of what is often done in police states.
Extortion.
Extortion is a good term for it.
What is your current status?
What were you finally convicted of and for how long?
So I went to trial in Washington, D.C. in September of 2022. Was convicted of all five charges, the 20-year felony and four misdemeanors.
Was sentenced on June 1st to nearly three years of prison, 32 months plus 36 months supervised release.
And I'm scheduled to report to the prison system on July 25th.
Do you regard that in light of the possibility of 20 years for Section 1512, is it?
Correct.
How do you regard the sentence you did receive?
I regard it as fraudulent.
Oh, I agree with you.
But in light of what you could have had, was the judge lenient?
Was the judge severe?
I don't know the answer to that.
I would suggest he was quite severe.
And that's because despite the prosecutor's very false and, frankly, absurd accusations against me or allegations that I was dangerous, that I was a ringleader, that I was a general of an insurrectionist army, etc., even the judge himself clearly understood that was not the case.
He actually articulated as much.
I was there at all.
And that furthermore, that I was not playing along with his program of contrition and acknowledging that I did something wrong, that I participated in a great evil, and that I should have been much more conciliatory for that.
And even furthermore, the real issue for the judge was that I went publicly on media interviews and giving speeches around the country, clearly articulating My view that Washington, D.C. as a political environment is entirely corrupted and biased and therefore my constitutional right of a fair trial by a jury of my peers was impossible and was made to be a farce and that my entire trial
and J6 generally is a sham, which I believe the evidence clearly shows.
And of course the judge does not hold this view.
And found it offensive, in his own words, offensive, that I would exercise my first moment rights.
Your judge felt that someone who was January 6th in the Capitol could get, that means a pro-Trump activist, could get a fair trial in Washington, D.C. That's his belief?
He reiterated this multiple times.
Has anybody been brought to trial and found not guilty?
Not by a jury.
Right.
Exactly.
Zero.
So they're batting a thousand with juries in Washington.
100% conviction, mate.
It's like white juries in the South with black defendants during Jim Crow.
Exactly.
It really is.
Political apartheid.
I stand by that analogy.
You are as likely to get a fair trial as a black...
In Alabama in the 1930s as a Trump supporter in Washington in 2023. Yeah, the hatred is no less.
Yeah, the hatred is no less.
That's fair to say.
And you had a good lawyer.
I did.
I had a great defense team.
I met him.
And he's a Democrat.
Yeah.
But he came to realize it wasn't fair what was being done to you.
That's absolutely correct.
Yeah, that was dramatic when I had dinner with him alone in Washington.
Yeah, it offended him, as it should anyone that believes in justice and fairness.
Well, believes in America.
Of course, fairness and justice.
That was supposed to be America.
Is there a chance that you could get out sooner?
There is a chance of some time being...
Reduced, but I'll still be in for multiple years, from my understanding.
Also, you were sentenced to a high-security prison, a man with no record of anything.
I don't even know if you stole a candy bar.
You're so clean and shiny.
Yeah.
Yeah, no, I have zero record of anything criminal.
By the way, did you ever steal a candy bar, even when you were eight?
No.
No, I didn't.
That is remarkable.
I didn't either, by the way.
I have to say, I thought it was wrong when I was eight.
I was taught from an early age to understand the importance of morality and respecting others.
Well, whoever taught you did a good job.
So, why are they sending you to a high-security prison?
I think because they've determined that they can get away with whatever they want to.
They want to punish you.
They hate you.
It sounds to me there is no other possible reason.
I mean, if you'd heard the jury's comments during jury selection, you'd be amazed at the level of open hatred that these people all have for me and that they have for anyone that associates themselves with President Trump or the MAGA agenda or really even a classical understanding of the Constitution.
I saw this two Saturdays ago when I spoke at the Moms for Liberty conference when I was roundly cursed by a hundred demonstrators.
Back in a moment.
Final segment with John Strand.
They're putting you in a high-security prison is pure 100%.
Cruelty.
They just want to hurt you.
There is no reason on earth you would be in a high-security prison with a record of nothing wrong in your life.
I mean, you're sort of angelic in that way.
You don't look angelic.
I've been told.
I just want to say.
Whatever that means.
But you are, and who decided to put you in this high-security prison?
The Bureau of Prisons.
Despite the request by my legal counsel for me to be placed in a minimum security camp in Pensacola.
Did they give a reason?
No.
I don't like when people don't have to give reasons.
I really don't.
That's a consistent theme in the government.
That's correct, it is.
They hate your guts.
I mean, it's as simple as that.
And they're cruel.
It's a combination.
And they're not pretending otherwise.
And they're not pretending otherwise.
So how do people get in touch with you?
Johnstrand.com.
Hello at Johnstrand.com.
So either way.
Okay.
Is that an email hello at?
Okay.
Hello at Johnstrand.com or just go to Johnstrand.com.
You should see the video.
Yes.
Didn't you help a police officer inside?
Is that correct?
No.
You had no contact at all with any police?
No physical contact.
I had verbal contact in the sense that...
About halfway through my journey in, I was stuck in a vestibule where I did not know where I was or how to get out.
And a police officer didn't approach me, but approached other people in that general area.
And after a few moments of confusion, I could finally understand he was waving his arms, directing them to reverse direction.
So we just have a few seconds.
You took the hard way and the noble way by not pleading guilty to a tiny misdemeanor.
You believe in truth.
You believe in America.
What gives you this fortitude?
Is it your religion, your nature, both?
It's definitely my faith in Jesus Christ, without question.
That is the center point of my identity, and it informs me exactly of who I am and how I should live my life.
I'm glad I asked you.
Johnstrand.com.
Hello at Johnstrand.com.
You're a special man, John Strand.
Thank you, sir.
Dennis Prager here.
Thanks for listening to the Daily Dennis Prager Podcast.
To hear the entire three hours of my radio show, commercial-free, every single day.
You'll also get access to 15 years' worth of archives, as well as the daily show prep.
▲
Export Selection