Please go to MyPillow.com and use the promo code Truth to save up to 66% off and Mike Lindell will give a generous percentage back to The Absolute Truth with Emerald Robinson show to support our free broadcasts.
Emerald Robinson: Three-hundred-fifty million dollars, that's the amount of watchdog group estimates that NIH officials like Dr. Tony Fauci have been paid in total in royalties over the last decade. And 2000 mules are revealing more than just voter fraud. It's also pulling the curtain back on so-called conservative outlets, especially over there at Fox News. Texas Congressman Troy Nehls joins us today to talk Durham and the latest in a Capitol Hill police investigation into him. That's The Absolute Truth. Little-known payments to government officials like Dr. Tony Fauci are coming to light. An investigation conducted by a nonprofit watchdog group called Open the Books estimates that Dr. Fauci, former National Institutes of Health director Francis Collins and others at the NIH have received $350 million in undisclosed royalties. The group detailed the findings of their investigation in a Substack article. Open The Books received hundreds of pages of line-by-line data from the federal government as part of a FOIA request. The group-based their estimate on a time period between the fiscal year 2010 and fiscal year 2014, in which over 22,000 payments were made to almost 1,700 scientists for a total of $134 million. That led them to conclude that quote, "Between fiscal years 2010 and 2020, more than $350 million in royalties were paid by third parties to the agency and NIH scientists who are credited as co-inventors."
Emerald Robinson: However, highly redacted documents received by Open The Books did not disclose the dollar amounts of the payments, only the number of payments made. So, according to the documents. Anthony Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases at the NIH, the highest-paid federal bureaucrat, as we've already talked about, received 23 royalty payments. Francis Collins, the former director, received 14 payments from 2009 to 2021. Clifford Lane, Fauci's deputy NIAID, received eight payments himself. According to Open the books is the first time since 2005 that the NIH royalty payments have received any kind of oversight, and the NIH continues to kick against this oversight, producing only 1,200 of the 3,000 pages of line-by-line data. The agency admits it has. Now, we'd like to welcome the CEO of that watchdog group fighting for transparency. Welcome, Open the books, Adam Andrzejewski. Adam, good to see you. This is such an important story.
Adam Andrzejewski: Thank you, Emerald. Thank you very much for having me in your program. It is great to be here.
Emerald Robinson: Now, I know how hard it is to get information from the government. They stall on every front. They present you with semantic plays in order not to honor those for your requests. So, I have to ask you, first off, how long did it take you to get this information from NIH?
Adam Andrzejewski: Yeah, it's a great question. Here's what the record shows. Number one, back in September of last year, September of 2021, our organization at OpenTheBooks.com., we filed a federal Freedom of Information Act request for these royalty’s database. Royalties are these payments paid from third parties, say a pharmaceutical company, back into the agency, into the agency scientists. It enriches those scientists and the agency, the National Institutes of Health. So, every single one of these payments could be a conflict of interest. We simply wanted to see the database of the line-by-line royalties over the course of the last ten fiscal years from 2010 through 2020. Now, here's the deal. The agency simply ignored our request. They refused to even acknowledge it. So, at the end of October, we sued NIH in federal court. Judicial Watch is our lawyers. As a matter, the case moved pretty quickly in the federal courts. So, by February 1st, on judicially mandated production, NIH admitted to 3,000 pages of these line-by-line royalties. Every single month, starting on February one, they have to produce 300 pages. Now, we've had four productions, 1,200 pages. It covers the span of years from 2010 through 2014, and we can estimate very safely now that $350 million flowed from these third parties. Like I say, think pharmaceutical companies back to the agency, back to the agency scientists.
Emerald Robinson: So, I have to ask you, Adam, because Dr. Fauci has these financial disclosures. I don't recall seeing a total of these royalty payments to him on those financial disclosures. Maybe you can correct that or clarify that for me. And secondly, how does NIH justify redacting the dollar amounts? I just don't understand that.
Adam Andrzejewski: Yeah. So, both of those are good questions. I'll take your last question first. The payments to the scientists themselves are blacked out. They are erased, and they're redacted by the agency. They're only disclosing the top-line numbers paid from the third parties to the National Institutes of Health or their sub institutes. So, we know how much money is at stake, and the numbers are a lot larger than the last time this database had transparency, which was in 2005, 17 years ago. The amounts are four times larger. The number of scientists receiving the royalties is twice as large. So, we know that Fauci is alongside 1,700 scientists at NIH receiving royalties. I can tell you how many payments he got, 23. Here's what I can't tell you. I can't tell you the amount of the payment because it was erased and redacted, and I can't tell you who paid it. The third-party payers' name and the company's name is also redacted and erased. So, if our lawyers at Judicial Watch, we have to go back into court to try to get these documents unredacted.
Emerald Robinson: Right. Now, back to my question on Dr. Fauci. Would we have seen these in his financial disclosures, or is there a way that they can hide those from those disclosures as well? I mean, I don't understand how that's even possible.
Adam Andrzejewski: Right. It's an excellent question. One that we have raised with the National Institutes of Health. So, back in April, I filed a request for comment because we saw Fauci's on the record statements from 2005 when the Associated Press got the full database back 2005. And Fauci's on the record saying that they had questions within the agency ahead of the disclosure as to the conflict-of-interest questions because they admitted every single payment could be a conflict of interest. They're funding these companies and receiving royalties from these companies. We need sunshine on this. So, the question that came up is, why aren't these royalties on your federal ethics and financial disclosures that are, quote-unquote, "public information?" Here was the answer. The agency treats these payments even know they're from third-party providers as federal income because the payments come to the agency, and then the agency itself doles out the payments to the scientists. They don't consider it outside income, so they don't list it on the disclosures. So, what we have in place here now is an entire system, Emerald, that's been designed to obscure the payments. Nowhere do these payments to scientists now get scrutiny and transparency.
Emerald Robinson: I mean, this is hugely concerning. I think this is one of the biggest blockbusters of our time, along with so many other stories from COVID that are COVID-related. My next question is, there's not been, as you said in your article on Substack, congressional oversight of these payments essentially is not congressional, but just oversight in general since 2005. So, that begs the question, why is there no congressional oversight of these payments? I know the issue has been raised. I know that whistleblowers have tried to reach out to the government that well predates COVID because they had worked with Fauci during the AIDS epidemic. They felt that there was some pay for play with some 5of the drugs there, and they were very concerned. So, how has this escaped congressional oversight for so long?
Adam Andrzejewski: Well, Congress needs to crack down, but I think you need a new Congress to do it because I don't think the current Nancy Pelosi majority is going to open the books on this potentially unholy alliance between Big Pharma and big government over at NIH. Emerald, think about this. Every single year NIH doles out $32 billion in grantmaking to 56,000 grant recipients. So, each year tens of billions of dollars are going out the door. That's taxpayer money to fund scientific research. Now, for the first time in 17 years, we know how much money is coming back into the government, into the scientists themselves, from big pharma, and these big corporations. It's tens of millions of dollars. You got tens of billions of dollars of taxpayer money going out. You got tens of millions of dollars coming back to enrich the agency and its scientists. We need to shine a white-hot spotlight on this and open the books completely on the details that they're obscuring.
Emerald Robinson: Well, let's be honest. Big Pharma is also one of the biggest campaign funders out there. I think that has created a problem with oversight as well. So, the next step, you're going back to court, and you're going to fight for the redacted dollar amounts. Do you think you'll be successful?
Adam Andrzejewski: Well, the jury's out on that. So, obviously, the data release policy from 2005 till now changed. In 2005 the Associated Press didn't have to sue. They filed their Freedom of Information Act request and got the entire database without redactions. We knew the amounts and the detail that flowed from WHO to each individual scientist. We don't know that today. We only know this summary top-line numbers. So, over the course of the last 17 years, did they design a quote-unquote legal system to hide the whole thing? It's an open question, but we're going to find out the answer.
Emerald Robinson: Well, look, you all have done a great job. This is information the American public absolutely needs to know, especially as the NIH, Dr. Fauci, and government officials have pushed so hard for mandates. They've also downplayed other therapeutics in COVID in favor of the new COVID antiviral, Paxlovid, by Pfizer. This is so important. Please keep us posted because we want to keep our viewers informed on this. You know, hopefully, there will be enough public pressure as well that some of the members of Congress will join your fight in some congressional oversight, Adam.
Adam Andrzejewski: Absolutely. As I said, Congress does need to crack down on this opaque system. It needs a white-hot spotlight. We need to be able to follow the money. We need to know who's receiving and how much from who, as they, on the one hand, receive the money and, on the other hand, dole out taxpayer dollars in grants.
Emerald Robinson: Absolutely. Well, our viewers can go to your Substack to learn more. They can also visit you on OpenTheBooks.org. We really appreciate you being here, Adam.
Adam Andrzejewski: Sounds great. Thank you very much for having me on.
Emerald Robinson: Up next, Congressman Troy Nehls joins us to react to the latest in the Durham investigation and a new Wall Street Journal piece giving a clearer look into the creation of the Steele dossier. Stick around.
Commercial: (Commercial Break)
Emerald Robinson: More lies related to the still dossier are being uncovered. A new piece in the Wall Street Journal explains how three acquaintances gossiped and ended up leading to the creation of the Steele dossier. One of those acquaintances was Charles Dolan Jr. Dolan, a PR executive who just happens to be a longtime ally of Hillary and Bill Clinton, coincidentally. As you see the release of the dossier, Dolan was shocked it was even published. In an email to a client, Dolan says quote, "I'm hoping that this is exposed as fake news. I will check with some folks in the intel world to see if they know who produced this." Now, many of the lies compiled in the Steele dossier were just pure gossip manufactured by this Clinton ally, Igor Danchenko. The man who is currently charged with lying to the FBI claims he never communicated with Dolan about the information that wound up in the Steele dossier, even though he was quote, as "Sourced on more specific allegations." Now, let's uncover what all this means and how it might relate to the Durham investigation with Texas Congressman Troy Nehls. Congressman, tell us a little more about the dossier.
Congressman Tony Nehls: Good morning. Real interesting, isn't it? It's just a complete web of lies, and if you look at some of the characters. You mentioned Mr. Dolan, obviously, who worked with not only Bill but Hillary in their campaigns. Then you've got this, Mr. Steele, this British spy. I mean, this is one hell of a novel, quite honestly. But I think it's really sad that they took all this information to try to destroy Donald Trump and his campaign. This Mr. Danchenko, number one, I hope he goes to prison. I hope they should lock him up and put him in prison because he seems to be one of the center characters here in this big fraud.
Emerald Robinson: Now, here is what stuck out to me about the Dolan email. Now, clearly, he knows that he had perpetrated this gossip and put it out there. Then he sends this email to a client to suggest, oh, well, I hope this is exposed as fake news. How did this make its way into a real investigation? That looks to me like he's sent an email, sort of like we saw Obama officials do when they had talked about the Russian investigation with James Comey. Remember, in the Oval Office with President Obama. This was sort of an email to try to pretend to give cover to himself for what he knew explicitly he had done.
Congressman Tony Nehls: Yes, and what's interesting is they took all this hearsay, and all of a sudden, they turned it into like fact. Then they put it out there, and then obviously, all the media hounds, the media circles, looked at it. But the idea they went over to Russia to talk to, I guess, the manager of the hotel and some other staff personnel at the hotel that claims that Trump had these prostitutes inside this hotel in Russia when Trump visited Russia. Just the silliness, but this is what they did. They took all this hearsay and this information, and they all of a sudden turned it into some type of fact. They're facts, even though it was completely a bald-faced lie, quite honestly. I hope that the American people will take the time to look at this Durham investigation and look at just how evil the far left the Democrats, specifically the Clintons and others, are as it relates to their adversaries and their political opponents. They will try to destroy you, your life, and your family, everything about you. Make up complete lies so they can get their way. This is what we've come to in America today with politics. Sad.
Emerald Robinson: Here is my issue with the Durham investigation, and I hope I'm wrong, Congressman, but based on what I see and this narrative, also with this latest from The Wall Street Journal. Nothing is ever coincidental. I have learned if it looks unusual; usually, it is. So, what I'm noticing is this major focus on the Clintons and their political operatives. This seems to take some of the onus off of the FBI and our intelligence community. Congressman, you, myself, and your constituents could have looked at this information and knew within 5 minutes that it didn't add up, and it was most likely political campaign garbage. How is it that the FBI couldn't do that? They spent millions on the Mueller probe and still, just now, are kind of admitting, well, you know, this was just gossip, hearsay, and really political campaign trash? I think that Durham, from what we seem to see so far, is going too soft on the FBI and our intelligence community and is being spun in a narrative to kind of exonerate them in the media. What do you say?
Congressman Tony Nehls: Well, what I do know is if you look at going back to Obama, using the FBI with Russia collusion and Clinton going against Trump, this is what President Clinton, his wife, and Obama, what they're doing is they're using the FBI and these intelligence agencies to gather information on their adversaries. It happened. It was quite clear it happened to Trump. I believe it's even happening here in our nation's capital with the Capitol Police, with Nancy Pelosi using the Capitol Police to spy on members of Congress, specifically my office, as it relates to the Capitol Police in my office taking pictures of my whiteboard. So, they are using these intelligence agencies, these spy agencies, to investigate their adversaries. I think it's criminal in many, many ways, but that's what they're doing. The FBI got caught up in this. I certainly believe that. I think the FBI got caught up in J 6th as well, and I believe that information will be coming out soon. So, it doesn't surprise me that the leaders, the presidents, in our nation have used some of these intelligence agencies to gather information about adversaries to try to destroy them, specifically Donald J. Trump.
Emerald Robinson: Yeah. I feel like these agencies are allowing themselves to be used. So, I ask you, do you believe there will be accountability that comes for the complicity of the FBI and our law enforcement via the Durham investigation? Or is he mostly just focused on these Clinton operatives?
Congressman Tony Nehls: Well, I'm hoping with this trial coming up with this, Danchenko, that we can get more information. I'm going to give Mr. Durham the benefit of the doubt here, that he's going to go out there, and he's going to do the best he can to uncover the truth. We need to know exactly what happened. So, I can't wait to see what happens here at this trial with Danchenko. I think he pled not guilty. Hopefully, they will televise that as they want to with these January 6th hearings. But I doubt that's going to happen now.
Emerald Robinson: I certainly hope so, too. Yeah, I doubt it. I seriously hope so, too. And Marc Elias has been called as a witness in the Michael Sussmann case. Now, I want to go back to something you talked about the fact that the Capitol Police came into your office and took pictures of your whiteboard. They suggest it wasn't a criminal investigation. You're now saying it was a criminal investigation. Can you now tell us exactly what was the Capitol Police looking for? Do you know?
Congressman Tony Nehls: Well, they claim they found a door to my office wide open on a Saturday. Saturday afternoon, I believe they stated, and then they went in and looked to make sure that there was no one in the office that shouldn't be there. We're not there on weekends. It's a Saturday, but they claim they found the door wide open, which is hard for me to believe. So, I said to the chief of police, I said, "If the officer went into my office to look around, make sure no one was in there, I'm fine. Hell, he could have looked underneath my desk as far as I'm concerned." But he didn't stop there. When he found no one was there. He took pictures of my legislative priorities that he found suspicious. He was preserving the evidence of threats. Like I'm going to be making threats to this Capitol Hill complex, to other members, whoever I was making these threats to. Then it went through several levels of supervision and eventually to the intelligence division. They came to my office that following Monday. So, no, I was under investigation, and the chief of police can claim I was never under investigation. No, sir, I was under criminal investigation because you don't investigate civil actions. You are a criminal law enforcement agency. So, I think what he's trying to do is he's trying to just make this no big deal, sir. Come on, Sheriff. You know, we weren't out there trying to spy on you. Well, I beg to differ.
Emerald Robinson: You should know a little something about that. You've been in law enforcement. So, what happens next? Are you just going to let the issue go now that they seem to want to let it go? Or are you going to press for some kind of accountability in this instance as well?
Congressman Tony Nehls: Without question, now the last inspector general, Michael Bolton, retired last month. So, there's an acting inspector general. He told me I would have that report this week. I received the executive summary. I think it's a little weak, but I still think it shows that what they did was wrong. As soon as I receive that report, I will be consulting with others and figuring out what we're going to do. Because of the very limited amount of integrity this organization has, meaning Congress, we need to make sure that we can protect the members of Congress, both sides of the aisle, from anyone entering their office and start taking pictures of their legislative priorities. We have to preserve and protect that because if people can just start walking into our office, you know, law enforcement and others, and start taking pictures, we've lost it. It's over for us. It truly, truly is. So, I'm going to make sure that I can protect that limited, very limited amount of integrity. This organization has, this place has.
Emerald Robinson: Yeah, hold their feet to the fire. Well, Congressman, when you get that report, we'd love to have you back to talk about the findings and where it goes from here. Thank you, as always, for being here—such a pleasure.
Congressman Tony Nehls: Absolutely. God bless, Emerald.
Emerald Robinson: Up next, Congress has passed an extra $40 billion in spending for Ukraine. All of this while American mothers struggle to find their babies, baby formula. We discuss the latest in Democrat America next.
Commercial: (Commercial Break)
Emerald Robinson: The House passed a $40 billion bill providing more aid to Ukraine last night. The additional funding received the support of 368 congressional members. The vote was pushed through, even though many complained about not having enough time to read through it moments before the vote was held. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi attempted to convince all of her colleagues to support Joe Biden's $40 billion pledge to Ukraine.
Nancy Pelosi, United States House Speaker: So, when your home thinking, what is this all about? Just think about when I was hungry, you fed me—the Gospel of Matthew.
Emerald Robinson: The Senate is expected to take up the vote on the $40 billion soon. The funding provides $3.4 billion in food aid to Ukraine. Now, this all comes at a time when American mothers are struggling to find baby formula for their own babies. Georgia Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene called out her colleagues for prioritizing others over American mothers.
Marjorie Taylor Greene, Congresswoman: A rise in opposition to the Ukrainian supplemental bill, $40 billion, but there's no baby formula for American mothers and babies. An unknown amount of money to the CIA in the Ukraine supplemental bill, but there's no formula for American babies and mothers.
Emerald Robinson: You know, I wish I could say as hard to believe that only 57 congressional members voted against this funding, especially in times like these. But, you know, I'm not surprised, and I suspect my next guest is not very surprised either. Let's welcome Revolver writer Darren Beattie. There are mothers across the country, and a lot of my friends are attempting to figure out how they're going to feed their babies due to the formula shortage. But, you know, Democrats and Republicans are a little more focused on Ukraine.
Darren Beattie: Well, yeah. Apparently, the CIA needed an extra several $10 billion, and I'm glad that we know the CIA's favorite Bible verse with respect to Congress. When the CIA is hungry, they expect to be fed, and Congress is always happy to oblige, in particular when it involves some kind of overseas adventure that has no discernible relation to the interests of ordinary American people. In fact, in this case, it's even worse than that because it has a negative correlation with the interests of world peace. The more money that we send over there, it's the less incentive that the Ukrainians have to go to the negotiating table and end this conflict in a manner in which both sides can save face and stop the fighting. We're simply pouring gasoline on this fire for the own selfish purposes of certain very malicious stakeholders in this regime. It's disgraceful, but unfortunately, it's really nothing new.
Emerald Robinson: Yeah. I always find it sort of rings false when Nancy Pelosi invokes scripture to sell her latest big spending package. But I have to turn back to that $10 billion allotted to the CIA and ask you, Darren, is this payback? Is this an olive branch to the CIA about the Afghanistan withdrawal, which is clearly also a loss of revenue for them? Right. They were making some money in Afghanistan.
Darren Beattie: Yeah. I mean, I think even 10 billion is probably a small change by the CIA standards. There are a lot of ways they get funded. I think this is kind of worse in the sense that it's just sort of typical business as usual. I don't know if it's even that kind of overt quid pro quo or if they really lost revenue. So, they always want more. They always need more. It's never enough for them, and Congress always obliges. Evidently, American democracy is a system of government that's set up simply to cater to the interests, desires, greed, and dysfunction of our intelligence agencies. This is simply another example. The CIA, just like the State Department and other organizations, is obsessed with maintaining Ukraine as a playground for various United States operations. That's what's fueling a lot of this.
Emerald Robinson: Apparently, so are so many members of Congress. Right?
Darren Beattie: Right.
Emerald Robinson: It's both sides of the aisle were happy to jump on board. There are billions going there now, but how much of that money really makes it to aiding Ukraine? How much of it really just goes to NGOs and makes its way back to the United States in some form, Darren?
Darren Beattie: That's a great question. I would love to see an actual sort of legitimate third-party audit of where all this goes. I don't know if such a thing would be possible, but I think you're absolutely right to suspect that a lot of this funnels into NGOs. There's this whole architecture of NGOs that we have set up that essentially are cutouts of our government, cutouts of our intelligence agencies that do the dirty work that has historically performed these color revolutions that people hear about more and more in Ukraine. So, the money just funnels back, and I'm sure there's a handsome percentage of that falls into the hands of the various warlords and oligarchs who are overseeing these private armies in Ukraine. How much of it actually goes to help the people there that need it is a very questionable thing. I suspect it would be very difficult to find an accurate answer to that.
Emerald Robinson: Yeah. I think even if you had a third-party audit, there would still be so much you couldn't trace. But I want to turn to another topic now, that being Twitter, which we've talked a lot with you about over the last few weeks. Yesterday, Elon Musk did it say he plans to reinstate former President Donald Trump's Twitter account during a discussion with the Financial Times. Take a listen.
Elon Musk: I guess the answer is that I would reverse the ban. Okay. I'm not - I don't own Twitter yet. So, this is not a thing that will definitely happen because what if I don't own Twitter? But my opinion and Jack Dorsey, I want to be clear. Shares this opinion is that we should not have bans.
Emerald Robinson: What do you think, Darren?
Darren Beattie: Well, I think that's tremendously encouraging, not only in relation to Trump, but I think that it's really time for a total amnesty. This is one amnesty that I can support, and that's an amnesty for people, everyone. There are so many good people who were booted off Twitter because the old trust and safety regime was acting as political commissars and not in the best interests of Twitter as a company. And certainly not in the best interests of facilitating healthy and robust discourse in this country. So, I think it only makes sense if there's regime change on Twitter, and I'm often against regime change, but if there's regime change on Twitter, then there should be an amnesty for the banned Twitter users. So, I find that tremendously encouraging, but as always, we have to see what happens.
Emerald Robinson: Yeah. Maybe I should use that in my next appeal, Darren. I should write them and say I'm claiming amnesty. That's usually something the leftist at Twitter would support. Maybe I'll catch them in their own semantics. Thanks, Darren. Good to see you.
Darren Beattie: Pathway to citizenship. Thank you.
Emerald Robinson: As the country awaits the final ruling from the Supreme Court, which could overturn Roe v Wade, one brave woman stepped forward to share her personal struggles. Kelly Lester is the daughter of a pastor. After being molested at the age of three by her great uncle and raped at the age of 12 years old, Kelly was full of shame. She found herself falling down a dangerous path of drugs and alcohol. During her low point, she had four abortions. Her turning point was when her father had a vivid dream of Kelly dying due to a head injury. At the time, Kelly was in an abusive relationship, and her father's vision came close to being her reality. After that, her then-boyfriend threatened to hit her with a wooden board. Kelly has turned her life around and is now advocating for the dismantling of Roe v Wade. Kelly Lester joins us now to share her personal experience. Kelly, thank you so much for being here and being brave enough to share your struggles with other women and viewers.
Kelly Lester: Well, thank you, Emerald. I appreciate you having me on. It's definitely an honor to be here.
Emerald Robinson: Now, everything we hear from the corporate media and from liberal politicians is that abortion is empowering. It allows us to hear from Hollywood starlets. If I hadn't had my abortion, I wouldn't be where I am today. But you have been through this personally. What do you say to women, Kelly?
Kelly Lester: Well, I say that the media is lying to you. The first thing that I want to say is that if you are a woman who has had an abortion and your experience was not this blissful, empowering experience that the media is telling you it should be if you are a woman who has a regret, shame or was even injured through your abortion. You are not alone. There are thousands of women like you who regret their abortion, who have shame and feel the loss from that. It is a very real thing. I think that it is not empowering. In fact, when did empowerment become when somebody tells you that you can't do something? That is what the abortion industry is telling women, that we cannot be mothers and be successful. We cannot be mothers and live out our dreams and our goals. We cannot be mothers and do anything. And Emerald, you're a mom and look at you. I'm a mom of six kids. You know, I think it's a shame that's what we're being fed.
Emerald Robinson: And you know, I have shared my story with a lot of people that I know it's tough. It is tough, especially if you're a single mom out there, and I'm blessed with a wonderful husband. But everything in my life got better with children, including my career, because my perspective changed. I think that should be the message toward women and that we should be there for the women, telling them even if you're a single mom, there should be more support around these women to help them thrive. That should be the message for women who may be struggling with this because I have known people in my life, women who had abortions and regretted it. It led them down a similar path to yours, and there was this long road to forgiving themselves. They didn't feel like they were worth forgiveness. Share with our viewers how you came to that point.
Kelly Lester: Well, I think what you said was correct. You know that it is very difficult, and, you know, even being married and having children is very difficult. But I have never met a woman, whether she was raped and conceived, a single mom, or a millionaire, who has said, "You know what? I wish I'd never had these kids." And there are lots of women like me who regret their abortion. For me, it was a long process. I would love to say that it was like an overnight thing, but it wasn't. There were wounds and insecurities, and I believed lies about myself. I believed what the abortion industry was telling me, that I wasn't good enough. You know that I wasn't strong enough, so I had to change those lies and those thoughts about myself. But also, when I worked in the abortion facility, I got to see the realities of abortion. The realities of abortion are that from the moment a woman enters the clinic, they are being manipulated and lied to with the purpose of them choosing an abortion. So, everything is done to, quote-unquote, "Make it easy for her to choose abortion, not to choose to parent. No Planned Parenthood or abortion facility provides diapers, wipes, scholarships for women to continue their education or child care assistance. They don't provide any of those things. They provide abortion, and you're right also. That is one of the things we need to do, which is why I love one of the ministries that I work for, Love Line. We need to provide for these women. When women feel supported, they choose life. We have not been supporting women in the way that we should. That's why we have ministries like Love Line that does just that by providing for financial needs so that women can choose life.
Emerald Robinson: Yeah, I agree. How would people go about finding these organizations in order to help support the would-be single mothers or would-be someone who might choose an abortion? How would they go about finding organizations like Love Line?
Kelly Lester: You can go to ProLove.com, and that will take you to a landing page that actually is both ministries that I work for. One is, Then There Were None, which helps get abortion workers like me out of the industry and find them new jobs, hope, and healing. Eventually, in Jesus Christ is always our goal. Then the other ministry is Pro Love Ministries, and there's a project under that called Love Line, which is that crisis line for women where we provide financial support. We also provide counseling and financial coaches, and its very holistic wraparound care for these women because we know that their situations are difficult. We want them to not just have money thrown at them like the government does or just have materials for the kids. But we want them to have support so that they can really improve their lives and make changes for themselves.
Emerald Robinson: Yeah. A lot of it comes down to mentorship because a lot of these women are making the choices because they don't have anyone in their lives to help them make the right choice and to help them with a career path or how to set up their life in a way to support this child. It's so important. Thanks for being here, Kelly. We really appreciate it. It's so important for women like you. It might be tough to tell their stories, but you just never know who's listening. Thank you, Kelly.
Kelly Lester: Well, thank you for having me. I appreciate the time.
Emerald Robinson: Coming up, we'll catch you up on some of the stories you might have missed in our Roundup after the break.
Commercial: (Commercial Break)
Emerald Robinson: Let's catch you up with some of the stories we didn't get to go in more depth with a daily Roundup. Dr. Oz is running to be the next senator for Pennsylvania, and things are they're not looking so good for him right now, especially as he's pretending to love hunting and guns. Watch.
Dr. Mehmet Cengiz Oz: So, people say, I won't support guns. They're dead wrong - pull.
Emerald Robinson: A little awkward in the grip there, now the pro-abortion Turkish citizen who says he's not pro-life is running in a dead heat with two other candidates, David McCormick and Kathy Barnette. The America First candidate, Kathy Barnett, is surging in the polls at this very moment. The primary is on May 17th. And in other news, Bill Gates somehow has caught COVID. Jeffrey Epstein's best friend told his globalist followers on Twitter that he tested positive but that he was experiencing just mild symptoms, unfortunately. Gates thanked the vaccines, of course, because, you know, nothing proves a vaccine works like catching the virus that you were vaccinated against. The disgraced tech oligarch did not mention why he funneled donations to colleges using pedophile Jeffrey Epstein as a frontman or why he continues to pretend to be a medical expert. He also said that he was isolated until he was healthy again, which means we might have seen the last of Bill Gates. Meanwhile, James O'Keefe, a Project Veritas, appeared before Congress, along with journalist Sharyl Attkisson, to warn Congress that protections for journalists against unaccountable government agencies like the FBI were no longer tough enough. Watch.
James O'Keefe: It is clear that the framework of journalists' protection relies upon the government, to tell the truth. Well, that framework is not enough. My home was raided by armed FBI agents in the predawn hours of November 6th, 2021. I was the third journalist at Project Veritas handcuffed that November.
Emerald Robinson: Yeah. James O'Keefe definitely knows what he's talking about. As he mentioned, his home was raided by the FBI in search of the diary of Joe Biden's daughter, Ashley Biden. The diary allegedly contains troubling allegations of abuse in the Biden family. And that's your Roundup coming up after this. As we discuss, Fox News and a few other conservative outlets don't want to talk about the movie 2000 Mules, and their viewers see the emperor has no clothing. My take after the break.
Commercial: (Commercial Break)
Emerald Robinson: Fox News has been on a collision course with its own audience since the stolen 2020 election. The Closet Liberal Network will not allow President Trump's rallies to be shown on a channel. Fox executives won't admit that they took money from the Biden regime to push the deadly COVID vaccines to you and your family. To top it all off, Fox News will not allow election fraud to be discussed. Does that sound conservative to you? Yesterday, the well-known author and filmmaker Dinesh D'Souza blew the whistle on Fox News and its strong-arm tactics. Dinesh is a frequent guest on Fox programs but watches this.
Dinesh D'Souza: Recently, you may have noticed that Catherine Engelbrecht of True The Vote went on Tucker Carlson's show and talked about Geo tracking. They talked about True The Vote. No mention of 2000 meals and a lot of people were like, "What's going on and what's going on?" For a while there, I was just silent about it because this is the problem with Fox News is they essentially kind of feel like we have you. Do you know what I mean? You can't get off the reservation because we can crucify you.
Emerald Robinson: Dinesh is telling you that Fox News tells its guests what they can say or do, and if they disagree, then Fox blacklists them from the network. Do you ever wonder why you don't see Rudy Giuliani, Marjorie Taylor Greene, or Peter Navarro on Fox anymore? Well, that's because they've been banned, but wait, there's more. Watch Dinesh explain what Fox tried to do to him.
Dinesh D'Souza: Tucker Carlson was planning to have Catherine Engelbrecht on the show, and his producers called me and said, "Oh, yeah, we can't really use your teaser trailer. We actually want to cut it down to like 40 seconds." And I'm like, "Well, I understand you have news restrictions on time. You want to use the first part of the last part." They go, "No, we want to use the middle part." Then I realized what they were saying was that we wanted to cut D’Souza media out. We want to cut Salem media out. We want to cut any references to the movie out, and then we want to cut out the ending where it talks about 2000 Mules. Essentially what they want to do is steal the middle of the movie, which we had produced, D’Souza media produced. They wanted to pretend like Tucker had produced it and essentially appropriate that content to themselves.
Emerald Robinson: Now, Fox News wanted to cut Dinesh's new trailer for his documentary on election fraud called 2000 Mules so that it looked like Fox News had made the movie. That's insane, and when Dinesh declined their terrible offer, Fox producers threatened to destroy his career. Now, Fox News doesn't want to cover election fraud because the GOP establishment doesn't want to find election fraud when it involves cheating to defeat Donald Trump. Fox News is the voice of the GOP establishment. That's why they have Lindsey Graham, Karl Rove, and Bill Barr on all day long. Fox News is on the side of a bunch of unpopular politicians who want to get rid of President Trump. Once you understand that Fox News is the voice of the corrupt unit party in Washington DC, then everything makes so much more sense. Fox is not on the side of Republican voters, but it does rely on them for their ratings. That's why 2000 Mules is creating such an awkward moment for them. Fox News has no idea what to do next. Fox executives can't admit that any fraud took place in the 2020 election. After all, they called the state of Arizona early for Joe Biden. That's why Fox has tried to dismiss any evidence of voter fraud. The network is going to keep pretending that voter fraud is a myth invented by conspiracy theorists, and they have to keep pretending until 2024. Fox News is not your friend. It's time to turn it off. And that's The Absolute Truth.