All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 3, 2021 - Dinesh D'Souza
01:01:57
TRUMP STRIKES BACK! Dinesh D’Souza Podcast Ep18
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Trump strikes back how he can turn the tables on the Democrats in the Senate impeachment trial.
Plus, Elizabeth Warren wants a wealth tax.
I go into a real powwow on that one.
And Marjorie Taylor Greene comes on to make her case for who the real kooks are.
This is the Dinesh D'Souza Podcast.
Did you see that ridiculous episode where Newsmax brought on Mike Lindell to talk about why he got banned from Twitter?
And then when he starts talking about it, they get really uncomfortable and the host runs off the set.
I think what's so evil and weird about all this is that not only are they doing cancel culture to us, but they're making our own side do it to us.
And that takes it to a whole new level.
They are recruiting conservatives to participate in Mike Lindell is sort of the poster boy of this.
He's in the eye of the storm.
And I think it's really important that we demonstrate effectively that this is not going to work.
They're not going to be able to destroy this man and destroy his business for what?
The crime of speaking up.
Speaking up and speaking his mind in an America that once had free speech.
So we need to support Mike Lindell.
And the good news is he makes great stuff.
Debbie and I love his stuff.
In fact, here's Debbie and I wearing Mike Lindell's robes.
They're so soft. They're so well made.
And you know what? Valentine's Day is coming up.
So let me put an idea in your head.
Mike also has these beautiful Giza dream sheets available in a variety of colors.
60-day money-back guarantee, 10-year warranty, and there are more than 100 products on his website.
You can get the sheets, buy one, get one free, by calling 800-876-0227 and use promo code Dinesh.
For a limited time, buy one, get one free on the sheets, or get discounts on all of Mike's products.
Call 800-876-0227 or go to MyPillow.com.
MyPillow.com.
Just make sure to use the promo code Dinesh.
America needs this voice.
The times are crazy, and a time of confusion, division, and lies.
We need a brave voice of reason, understanding, and truth.
This is the Dinesh D'Souza Podcast.
I'm D'Souza.
The House managers have filed their brief in the upcoming Senate impeachment trial, so we know what they're going to argue.
And the Trump team has also showed a little bit of its hand in responding to that brief.
I want to focus in a little bit on how this trial is likely to go.
Now, I should say at the outset that we shouldn't get freaked out about this trial.
It's a circus. And it's going to have entertaining aspects.
I mean, the Democrats are going to show up and they're a ridiculous menagerie.
It's going to be like they're going to have the dwarves and the trapeze artists and the elephants and they're going to put on a show.
Why can we relax about it and enjoy it?
In part because we actually know the outcome of it.
They're going to fail. Trump's going to be acquitted.
They're not going to get the Republican Party to fall for this scam.
But they're going to try really hard and the media is going to put on its great solemnity and, oh, this is the second impeachment trial of the same president in American history, blah, blah, blah.
But the bottom line of it is Trump has a winner here.
He's going to come out of it.
And I would say unscathed.
Unscathed in part because he has the chance to turn the tables on the other side.
And I want to lay out how he can do that.
Now, let's turn to the case.
It really focuses on a couple things.
First of all, I'm quoting now, if provoking an insurrectionary act against a joint session of Congress after losing an election is not an impeachable offense, it's hard to imagine what would be.
And then the House managers make kind of a constitutional argument.
They say, there is no January exception to impeachment.
A president must answer comprehensively for his conduct in office from his first day in office.
So they're saying Trump was still president in January.
So we can impeach him because when he did the actions, he was president.
We're not impeaching a private citizen.
They're also saying, and the key word here is, provoking an insurrectionary act.
So there are two things here. Was this a real insurrection?
And did Trump, in fact, provoke or incite it?
Now, the Trump team's defense at this point looks to me to focus on the unconstitutionality of impeaching a private citizen.
And on this, the language of the Constitution is not absolutely clear, but I would say it weighs very much in the Trump favor.
That what they're trying to do here is vindictively go after him after his presidency, really with a view to preventing him from running again, which really should be a decision made by the American people.
I think the key to Trump's defense here needs to be not to limit yourself to a constitutional defense.
Why? Because in a sense, if you're making a constitutional defense, you're kind of saying, this process is unconstitutional.
I might have done it.
But somehow this is not an authorized procedure.
I think it's really important that the Trump team show that Trump didn't do it.
And it's important to show that not just for Trump's sake, but also because the left and the Democrats are trying to pin the blame for this event on the MAGA movement, really on all of us.
So let's talk for a minute about what Trump sort of did and didn't do.
Essentially, the Democrats are saying that the Trump speech prior to the occupation of the Capitol was cause and effect.
He was the cause, and that was the direct effect, predictable effect, and desired effect of his actions.
And here we have to pay attention to this notion of cause and effect, because cause and effect are a little bit of a slippery concept.
There's a fallacy in logic called post- Which basically means this.
If something came after something else, it doesn't follow that the something that came after was caused by what came before.
So if Trump speaks and then they take over the Capitol, it doesn't mean that his speech made them take over the Capitol, particularly if there were plans to take over the Capitol before.
Or, particularly if Trump didn't say, go take over the Capitol, and then people went over and did that, it doesn't mean he caused it.
There's another fallacy, by the way, which is very easy to miss.
It's when two things are conjoined.
They happen together all the time.
And yet, they are not caused by each other, but they are caused by some third thing.
So, let's say, for example, I noticed that every time I go out...
of the house in the summer and I notice that I'm perspiring heavily.
I notice that the asphalt on the road is also moist.
Does it mean that my perspiration is causing the asphalt to melt?
Does it mean that the asphalt is causing me to perspire?
No. Some third factor, in this case the sun, the heat of the sun, is causing both my perspiration and the melting of the asphalt.
So, let's apply this analogy to this case, because I believe that it wasn't Trump- Who caused the insurrection, if you want to call it that, at the Capitol.
It was a third factor that caused both Trump's rhetoric and caused the occupation of the Capitol.
And that was the deep-seated belief.
Based upon all these hearings that were going on all around the country, people were testifying, there were witnesses.
And that caused a lot of people in the MAGA movement to believe this election is stolen.
Our democracy itself has been hijacked.
It wasn't just that Trump convinced them.
The evidence, as presented in the hearings, appears to have convinced both Trump and the MAGA movement, or many people in it, that something very nefarious was going on.
So it was this third factor, in this case the heat of the sun, that produced both results.
And because the two results occurred together, people go, one must have caused the other.
But that, as I'm suggesting, is a fallacy.
Now, While Trump's rhetoric was benign, peacefully and patriotically march, the truth of it is the real insiders have been on the left.
And there are so many examples.
I just want to focus in on one.
And I think it's important for the Trump team to bring this out in the trial itself.
It's kind of like, you want to talk about incitement?
Let's define the parameters of incitement.
Let's look at who incites people to do what.
Let's look at what rhetoric is truly incendiary and beyond the bounds.
So here I turn for a moment to Chuck Schumer, who's actually going to be prominent in this Senate trial.
Chuck Schumer, less than a year ago, led a huge mob to the steps of the Supreme Court while justices were deliberating and he violently threatened two of them.
I'm going to quote him now. I want to tell you, Gorsuch, by name.
I want to tell you, Kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price.
You won't know what hit you.
Look at the language of violence here.
If you go forward with these awful decisions.
This was so creepy.
That liberal judicial, liberal professors, law professors like Lawrence Tribe condemned it.
And Chief Justice John Roberts took the extraordinary step of releasing a statement in which he said, You want incitement?
There it is. So I think it's important.
Now, by the way, when this happened, this was the headline in the Washington Post.
Not Schumer engages in incendiary rhetoric, but rather, GOP seizes on Schumer's remarks.
That's the story, that the GOP is somehow jumping on Schumer for doing this.
It's a political move by the GOP. So this gives you an idea of how the media colludes to protect Schumer in that case.
Bottom line, Trump has the opportunity to flip.
The script on the Democrats.
And not only assure that he's acquitted, but in a sense, they are indicted.
They are indicted where?
Among the jury of public opinion.
And he does this by not only showing that he is an innocent party here, but moreover, that the real incitement has always, and still now, comes mainly from the left.
Hey, if you know the D'Souza family, we're kind of selective with our partnerships, and E-Guard Watches is the company we're genuinely very excited about.
The CEO, Elon, is an immigrant entrepreneur American success story.
His company creates exceptional products, but Elon also cares about American values.
He has his own voice. Debbie and I just watched a powerful video Elon made on censorship called What is Freedom?, where he put his company on the line to take a stance on the issue of freedom.
Especially now, it's nice to see a company like eGuard Watches taking a stand.
It's not the first time they've taken a risk.
Elon was awarded the Fox Patriot Award for standing up for police in the middle of the whole defund the police movement.
He created another video that's very well worth seeing on this subject of policemen.
He also made a video to fight toxic masculinity.
There was an ad campaign denouncing toxic masculinity by Gillette, and Elon released a video celebrating masculinity.
All these videos are available on the website at eGuard.com.
eGuardWatches.com. Debbie and I are both wearing one today.
Hey, look at mine. This is my EGuard watch.
And look how cool it is. The craftsmanship, the uniqueness is something to marvel at.
They feel a lot more expensive than they are.
You can get a 15% discount off these watches.
But you've got to go to eGuardWatches.com and use the promo code Dinesh.
Again, it's eGuardWatches.com, promo code Dinesh.
Here in America, our political coverage tends to be quite provincial, focusing just on stuff going on in America.
And I think that's a mistake because, first of all, there's important stuff going on in the world, and I certainly want this podcast to have a cosmopolitan thrust Where we look at what's happening in Russia with Navalny, we look at what's happening in China, even the history that leads up to things that are happening now, and Iran. And it's not just because those countries are out there and doing important things, it's because they have an influence.
They're actually in some ways actively involved in American politics.
Now here's an interview with the Iranian foreign minister, Javad Zarif, talking to Christiane Amanpour of CNN. And you can see he's trying to put pressure on the Biden administration to make concessions to Iran by striking a kind of strutting pose on nuclear weapons.
Listen. Can I start by asking you about the, I guess, the warning from the US that your country is now or could be just weeks away from having enough enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon.
What do you say about that?
Well, I think that is a statement of concern that is more addressed to the public opinion than to reality.
Iran does not seek A nuclear weapon.
If we wanted to build a nuclear weapon, we could have done it some time ago.
But we decided that nuclear weapons will not augment our security and are in contradiction to our ideological views.
Look at that guy's condescending tone.
It's almost like, oh, well, you know, we're not going to build these weapons.
Not because we can't, but we don't really want to.
We could if we wanted to.
Now, first of all, I think you realize you're listening to a, in the case of Zarif, a bald-faced liar.
I mean, let's think of why Iran would not want to build a nuclear weapon.
Reason number one, Islam is a religion of peace.
Zarif believes, why build a nuclear bomb when we have human bombs?
We have Abdul right here.
We'll use human bombs instead of nuclear bombs.
Could that be the reason?
Could it be that Zarif believes only Western countries deserve nukes, and maybe some Asian countries like India and China, or even the Muslim country of Pakistan, but here in Iran, we're like above that.
No, he believes none of this.
The truth of it is, Iran desperately wants a nuclear weapon.
And they want a nuclear weapon for a reason that is given by an old joke that says, what do you call a dictator that has a nuclear weapon?
Answer, sir, sir.
Iran is jostling with other big and powerful countries in the Middle East for who gets to be top dog.
There are three big countries in the Middle East that are vying for that position.
There's Saudi Arabia, which is making its claim not just based on its oil but also the fact that it has Mecca and Medina.
It is the kind of node center of the House of Islam.
Then you have Egypt which has traditionally been the most important country in the Middle East and the Egyptians of course are Sunni like most Muslims in the region and in the world.
And then you have Iran.
And Iran wants to be top dog.
And a nuclear weapon would make Iran top dog.
And so let's not be fooled about where Iran is going despite these public, slippery, silky disavowals.
Iran is going for a nuke because that's the way that Iran can become a powerful player in global politics.
Today we're in a battle for truth, and this is a time for strengthening our faith and worldview.
I'd like to recommend an insightful book to you called, Reflections on the Existence of God, by bestselling author Richard Simmons III.
He writes on a whole bunch of topics, life, death, sex, truth.
Reflections on the Existence of God is a collection of short essays that tackles the biggest question of all, does God exist?
The book is well-researched, easy to read, and is now a bestseller on Amazon.
Former White House aide, Wallace Henley says, "'I've taught apologetics for many years.
Of all the books on apologetics, Simmons is the best I have ever read.' If you want to challenge yourself to spiritual and intellectual growth, I encourage you to get your copy of Reflections on the Existence of God by Richard Simmons III.
Visit ReflectionsDinesh.com to learn more about the book and get exclusive access to the first chapter for free.
Go to ReflectionsDinesh.com now.
That's ReflectionsDinesh.com.
Marjorie Taylor Greene is a freshman, newly elected congresswoman from Georgia.
And normally, it's very difficult as a newly elected congressperson to kind of get on the national stage.
It takes years. Sometimes it takes a decade or two.
But Marjorie Taylor Greene has found herself in the laser-like national spotlight.
The left has targeted her.
They want to make her a symbol of the kind of kookiness, you may say, of the Trump or the MAGA movement.
And they're trying to recruit the Republican leadership into chastising her with all these wild accusations.
So I'm delighted to have Marjorie Taylor Greene herself right here on the podcast to talk about this and to fire back and to kind of tell us who she thinks the real kooks are.
Marjorie, welcome to the program.
Let's jump right into it.
They're saying that you believe that Jews attacked the state of California with a space laser.
True or false? Well, I've never actually heard of Jewish space lasers, but some reporter, some Democrat activist in the media wrote some article saying that I said that, so that's absolutely false.
What about the idea that 9-11 was an inside job, true or false?
9-11 happened.
We all saw it happen. I remember crying that day as we watched, what was it, nearly 3,000 Americans die And one of the worst Islamic terror attacks on our nation.
So, yes, 9-11 happened.
That accusation is false.
And 9-11 was done by Osama bin Laden and his cohort of radical Muslims.
Oh, Osama bin Laden, absolutely. 19 terrorists that hijacked airplanes.
And, you know, there's nothing wrong with asking questions.
And that's all I've done is ask questions.
Representative Cori Bush, who's part of the Black Lives Matter movement, I believe she was part of the gang that accosted the McCloskey family right outside their home.
She seemed to claim that you accosted her in some showdown.
You released video that actually showed the opposite.
She's the one who accosted you.
That's right. Representative Cori Bush, she's another freshman member.
She's a Marxist BLM activist.
That led the mob into the McCloskeys' neighborhood where they broke open a private gate and entered the neighborhood there, threatening the McCloskeys' lives, threatening to burn down their home, threatening to kill their dog, threatening to rape Mrs.
McCloskey, and horrible things that Americans should never have to tolerate from other so-called Americans that shouldn't have any problem with them.
The McCloskeys did nothing wrong, and Cori Bush led the mob in there.
Well, she's still leading the mob here in the Democrat Party, introducing resolutions and harassing members like myself.
I was walking through the tunnel, talking on a live video on my phone, talking to my district and people that support me.
I didn't even know I passed her in the tunnel until I heard a loud, screaming voice from behind me, screaming at me to put on my mask.
well, I happened to put on my mask and turn back to see who this person was and saw that it was Cori Bush screaming at me to wear a mask. But the interesting thing is, is it was the week literally right after we had just gotten here to Congress and Nancy Pelosi had brought COVID positive members into the Capitol, had them travel here, spread COVID all through the Capitol, and they had tested positive. And so it was really silly
for her to be screaming at me to put on a mask when she was nowhere near me, not within six feet and shouldn't be in my space attacking me that way anyway. So she got busted in the lie.
She got caught.
Now the left has, the Democrats have in Congress a wide range of kooks.
And I could go down name after name of people with extreme views who have said ridiculous things.
But they also have some people who are a little dangerous.
And I'm thinking, for example, now about Eric Swalwell.
And the fact that it has been revealed that Eric Swalwell had this sexual relationship with a woman who was, in a sense, an espionage agent for the Chinese government, yet he sits on sensitive committees.
Nothing has been done to discipline him.
What do you think of this ridiculous double standard in which you're being, oh, we got to keep her off the committees, and here you have a guy who could be slipping secrets to the Chinese for all we know, And he's sitting there solemnly and acting, and the media is acting as if everything is in order here, folks. That's right.
It's the double standard, and this is the house of hypocrites.
That's what I call the house of representatives, the house of hypocrites.
You see, I'm an ordinary person.
I was the first person in my family to graduate from college.
I've been a successful business owner for two decades now.
I've been married almost 25 years, and I have raised three amazing kids.
I'm also a Christian, and I'm also a very proud conservative.
And I've never been arrested.
I've never done drugs, but I have gotten a few speeding tickets.
This grave sin that I am being crucified for in the public square is for reading about things, posting about them, and asking questions on Facebook in 2018.
And they are outraged that I dare commit such a sin and use my freedom of speech and just ask questions about things that I had read about.
But, like you said, we have people like Eric Swalwell, who had a sexual relationship with a Chinese spy.
And Nancy Pelosi would not dare allow him to be removed from the intel committee.
We have Ilhan Omar, who married her brother to get him into the country.
Nancy Pelosi would not dare allow Ilhan Omar to be removed from any of her committee assignments.
We have Maxine Waters, who called for people to attack Trump supporters.
But no one dares allow Maxine Waters to be removed from her committees.
And the list goes on and on.
Cori Bush, the Marxist BLM activist that attacked the McCloskeys.
The McCloskeys have now lost their gun rights.
They can't even own a gun to defend themselves.
But Cori Bush herself sits here in Congress.
She also didn't pay her taxes, but she's on the Judiciary Committee.
But here we have the Republican leadership that won't stand up for me We'll not step out and defend me or defend our party and defend others against the radical henchmen in the media who do all of the attacks for the Democrat Party.
It's absolutely appalling.
You see, my district has written letters to Kevin McCarthy telling him that he needs to defend me because they support me back home.
No one at home has censured me.
No one at home is calling for my removal from my district.
But yet you look at Liz Cheney from Wyoming.
Liz Cheney has been censured at home.
Her state party censured her, and she has the lowest approval rating.
If there was an election today, she would lose.
And the people at home who voted for her want her removed as chairwoman, and they want someone else next cycle.
You see, it's up to the people that vote us in.
It's up to them to choose whether they send us back or not.
It's not up to the D.C. swamp.
It's not up to the bubble.
It's not up to the political consultants.
It's not up to CNN and the cable news networks that blog and post and put their little videos up on television.
That's not who I'm here to represent.
I'm here to represent my district and its people over politicians.
And you see it's a little bubble here in the district of communism that is completely disconnected from the rest of America.
Now, wouldn't it be a smarter move for McCarthy and McConnell to basically say to the Democrats, hey, listen, guys, you don't get to decide who are the Republican members on committees.
You don't get to control who our team wants to field, in a sense, on the field.
And if you think you can cancel out members of our committee, well, hey, you know what?
There's a midterm election coming up in two years.
If we take the House and the Senate, we're just going to start kicking off all the people we want to on your committees.
So this is a dirty game that both can play.
Why is the Republican leadership, both McConnell and McCarthy, instead of going that way, Responding in sort of wildebeest fashion and saying, okay, listen, why don't we make a deal in which we kick Marjorie off one committee but keep her on the other?
Why are they showing this kind of weakness and allowing the left to make Republicans instruments of cancel culture?
Well, everything you just said is the reason why people are outraged.
And this is also what will cause Republicans to lose in 2022.
Take Georgia, for example.
300,000 Republican voters stayed home and sent our two Republican senators to the slaughter because they were angry and they were fed up that nothing was done in the state of Georgia to change the election.
On November 3rd, they ran the same election and they ran it on January 5th.
People were furious. They didn't listen to the voters.
The Secretary of State did nothing.
And so you know what? Republican voters stayed home and said, I'm not participating.
The same thing will happen in 2022.
Because of Republican leaders like Mitch McConnell and Kevin McCarthy that refuse, that are too weak to stand up against the mob, that will never stop coming for Republicans.
It's me this week.
It'll be someone else next week.
And our leaders are too weak to stand up against it.
That is why Republican voters will not vote for them anymore.
It's already all over social media and they're not paying attention.
People are screaming to stand up for MTG To support me and protect me.
But the Republican leaders are too busy, worried about what they might look like on television, worried about what those microphones are going to say when they're put in their face.
And they're very much worried about big tech and big corporations and their donations that they're not getting right now.
But here's the truth.
I have raised so much money and it's all small dollar donations.
And that's the only kind of donations that I honestly care about.
Wonderful people are sending in $5, $10, $100, and even much more amazingly, and I'm so thankful for that.
And I'm not having to sit around and make phone calls and beg people to mail money to me.
They're sending it in because they support me, because I am standing up to the cancel culture mob.
I'm standing up to the Silicon Valley cartel, and I'm standing up to the Democrat witch hunt, the same one that we saw for four years on President Trump.
And it's the witch hunt that the American people are fed up with.
Folks, let me just sum up by saying, listen, if you want to send Kevin McCarthy a message, let him know what you think.
And I'm not talking about denouncing him.
I'm talking about telling him not to be a fool here because ultimately the left needs to recruit our side.
We have to become complicit in cancel culture for it to work.
If we hold firm, it's not going to work.
So here's the number.
I'm going to put up the contact information for Kevin McCarthy's office.
You can also email him.
You'll have to give him your name and your email for that to happen, but you can do it.
So be active.
Get out there. Make your voice heard.
Let the Republican leadership know what you think.
Hey, Marjorie Taylor Greene, thanks for coming on the podcast and making your case.
Thank you very much. You know, I got one more thing.
If people could call Nancy Pelosi and tell her at her office, That when we do take the majority, if we do take it back, that the same thing that she's pulling on me, that we won't forget and that we'll do the same thing to their radical members that are really, really doing things wrong, like Eric Swalwell sleeping with Chinese spies and many others.
Absolutely. Hey, thanks, Marjorie.
Really appreciate it and good to see you again.
Thank you, Dinesh. Have a great day.
Hey, have you gotten yourself a VPN, a virtual private network?
Ladies and gentlemen, there's never been a more important time to protect your digital rights.
That's why I and thousands of my listeners choose to secure our online data by using ExpressVPN.
Did you believe that a VPN isn't for you because you can use the internet just fine without one?
Anytime you go online, your internet service provider can see every site you're visiting.
Are you confused about how it works?
ExpressVPN is an app for computers and smartphones that encrypts your network data and reroutes it through a secure server.
That means you can use the internet more anonymously without having your activity tracked.
Do you think that VPNs are complex and only for tech experts?
No, take it from me, they're not.
With ExpressVPN, you launch the app and tap just one button to protect yourself.
It's really that simple. I trust ExpressVPN to protect my online data because they're rated number one by CNET and Wired, and they stand for my values.
Now is the time for you to take a stance.
Take back your privacy at expressvpn.com slash Dinesh and get three extra months free on a one-year package.
Again, that's expressvpn.com slash Dinesh to get three extra months free.
Visit expressvpn.com slash Dinesh right now.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has given her own direct account for Of what happened to her during the, quote, siege of the Capitol.
And it turns out it's all about her.
It's all about her.
And you kind of have to listen to this as she tells it in her own voice.
These yells of these men, or just this a man, just one man, going, where is she?
Where is she? I start to look through the door hinge.
To see if I can see anything.
And there's like a door here and there's like another door here.
So I'm like, I'm like trying to look through two door hinges.
And so I look through this door hinge and I see this white man in a black beanie bump, just like open the door of my personal office and come inside the personal office and yell again, where is she? And I have never been quieter in my entire life.
I was just, I don't even know if I held my breath, but I was just, you know, here, behind there, and I just started sliding down.
And then all of a sudden, I hear my staffer, G, yell out, And he's like, hey, it's okay.
Come out. Come out.
So, I'm like, I don't know, so deeply rattled.
I'm still processing the end of my life when I come out.
And I come out.
And this man is a Capitol Police officer.
That may sound to you like a bit of a fake laugh.
It's a fake laugh to go with a fake acting performance.
AOC goes Hollywood!
And in fact, I wouldn't be surprised at the end of this whole little political expedition if AOC actually ends up as an actress.
This to me was stagecraft.
AOC sets it up beautifully.
It's high drama.
The terrorists are in the building.
I'm having a near-death experience.
They're out to get me.
I spotted them through the little opening in the door.
I had to hide.
I had to be quieter than a mouse.
And the only problem with this narrative, this ridiculous narrative, if I can say that, is the conclusion is a complete anticlimax.
The guy who kind of comes bustling in is not some terrorist.
It's not some MAGA guy with a machete.
It's not even Ted Cruz in a Zodiac mood.
No one's out to get AOC. It's a Capitol Police officer who's there to protect her.
She's fine. This was all kind of needless excitement on her part.
And the weird thing is, instead of saying, wow, you know, that was just a false alarm, I feel so relieved, she turns on the Capitol Hill officer and begins to say, oh, he gave me some scary looks, I was even more scared than ever, as if suddenly he now becomes the threat.
And look, we can kind of chuckle At this kind of nitwittery, this kind of thespianism.
But the real sadness is try to imagine putting yourself in the place of this police officer.
You know, here's a guy who's putting his safety on the line, who's trying to protect people.
And here is AOC making a soap opera out of it in which he, the police officer, becomes the villain.
The bottom line is that AOC is, at the end of the day, an unscrupulous narcissist.
She acts as if the events on the world stage are for her benefit, and her emotional response to them is ultimately what's truly important.
And maybe she has some goofy followers who are in it for the ride and like this kind of emotional manipulation.
They want to be manipulated.
But I think the rest of us need to step back And chuckle, even if somewhat ruefully.
I've talked about how Mike Lindell is in the laser sights of cancel culture and the importance of us uncanceling Mike.
In other words, showing Mike that we support him and we're going to make him more successful than ever.
And we do this by supporting a patriot and a Christian and patronizing MyPillow, MyPillow.com.
Well, here's a really funny picture.
This is Kodak.
And Kodak is my stepdaughter's 100-pound dog.
He is on his MyPillow dog pillow.
Now, he's had some dog pillows before, but my stepdaughter Jay says this is the only dog bed that Kodak, who's still a puppy, hasn't destroyed.
Kodak, by the way, is named after a rapper named Kodak.
Who apparently endorsed Trump.
All very interesting. In any event, this dog bed is durable.
Kodak loves it, as you can see in the photo.
And it's just part of this wide range of merchandise that MyPillow has.
Mike has these Geezer Dream Sheets, and he's offering buy one, get free on those.
He's also offering up to 60% off on a whole range of other stuff, from towels to robes to blankets and so on.
Call 800-876-0227.
Use promo code Dinesh.
So buy one, get one free on the Giza Dream Sheets.
Call 800-876-0227.
Or if you want the dog bed, or the blankets, or the robes, any of Mike's other great stuff, go to MyPillow.com.
Just make sure to use promo code Dinesh.
Senator Elizabeth Warren is on the rampage to have a wealth tax.
She is on the Senate Finance Committee, and she goes, My first order of business will be to introduce legislation for a wealth tax on fortunes above $50 million.
It's time to make the ultra-rich pay their fair share.
Now, the wealth tax represents a kind of escalation.
The left has been talking about it, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, but I don't think they dream they would be in a position to actually do it.
But now they are.
And remember that in American, in our tax system, by and large, we tax income.
We don't tax wealth.
Why? Partly because wealth is already taxed.
The way you accumulate wealth is by adding up your income, and your income can be investment income, and that's taxed through capital gains taxes, or it can be income that you just earned, and that's taxed through the tax system.
So you've already paid. Why would you be taxed again just for having wealth?
Elizabeth Warren is pushing this on the grounds of people need to pay their fair share.
And you notice that this phrase, fair share, keeps creeping up.
It was also big with Obama.
People aren't paying their fair share!
Of course, Obama never explained what the fair share is, how it's calculated, how you determine what it is right and legitimate for someone to pay.
This becomes a kind of slogan.
Elizabeth Warren tried to explain in a recent—well, this goes back to her debate when she was running for president—why it is right and proper that there be a wealth tax.
And her answer is, wealthy people have taken advantage of the community.
Listen. It's about saying you built something great in this country, good for you.
But you did it using workers.
All of us help pay to educate.
You did it using your getting your goods on roads and bridges.
All of us help pay for it.
You did it protected by police and firefighters.
All of us help pay the salaries for.
So when you make it big, when you make it really big, when you make a top one-tenth of one percent big, pitch in two cents.
This sounds familiar.
Do you remember this? Does it have any echoes for you?
It does for me. It echoes right back to Obama's, you didn't build that.
Remember all that?
And the argument is actually kind of simple and a little deceptive if you aren't paying attention.
Essentially, as Warren puts it, you rich guys who have all this wealth...
Drove to your offices on roads that the rest of us paid for.
And you went to schools the rest of us paid for you.
And you hired employees the rest of us paid to educate.
And of course, the sleight of hand here is the word the rest of us.
Because the rest of us implies that other people paid for these subsidies, these benefits, but the rich guy didn't himself or herself pay.
But that's not true, isn't it?
That's not true, is it?
Think of it. The rich guy also paid.
For the roads. He also paid for the schools.
So imagine two guys who go to public school.
One guy takes advantage of the education, such as it is, and creates a business that's immensely successful.
The other guy isn't. Now, why would you penalize the guy who's successful?
They both had the same education.
They both used the same roads.
But one guy capitalized on it, and the other guy didn't.
It's not as if rich people derive extra public services.
They don't use the roads any more than you or I do.
It's not as if when they call the fire company, the fire engine comes really fast, five times faster to their house than it does to your house or mine.
So this whole notion that the rest of us have made some payments that imposes an additional obligation on wealthy people seems to be very dubious.
This is the fallacy that Warren and earlier Obama were perpetrating.
Again, I've called it before the argumentum ad ignorantium.
It's the argument that relies on the ignorance of the audience.
They hope that you and people, the American people, are too dumb to see through it.
And that's how they get away with it.
So when we come back, I'm going to delve a little more deeply into this issue of the wealth tax.
But before that, a word from AMAC. Want to belong to a senior organization you can trust?
That's AMAC, the Association of Mature American Citizens.
AMAC is the fastest-growing conservative 50-plus organization in America.
Over 2 million people have joined and now carry the AMAC membership card.
AMAC was built by folks who feel the same way we do.
AMAC stands for the values that have made America great, faith, family, and freedom.
They believe in the sanctity of our Constitution, including the First and Second Amendments.
They're fighting against the ever-expanding scope of the federal government.
They're pro-small business, secure our borders, support our military, and respect our veterans.
AMAC works hard to deliver real value to their members, providing the best benefits, discounts, and services you can find in one place.
Join AMAC today. Hey, Debbie and I are lifetime members.
We just got our AMAC magazine in the mail.
Looking forward to reading it. So go to amac.us and join now.
Join AMAC today.
The website again, amac.us.
There's a lot to say about Senator Elizabeth Warren's proposal for a wealth tax.
Interestingly, this is part of a global movement in some other countries as well to impose wealth taxes.
Now, the Scandinavians have already tried it.
A number of the Scandinavian countries tried a wealth tax.
I think only one Norway currently has one.
The rest of them dumped it.
They dumped the idea. Why?
Why? Because they found it doesn't really produce as much income as they had hoped for the Treasury.
Thomas Piketty, the author of the book Capital, this is a French economist, a leftist, loves the idea of a wealth tax, but he admits it doesn't create that much revenue for the government.
He goes, the reason we need it is punitive.
We need it because we don't actually want to have big estates.
We want to get rid of them. We don't want those kinds of people.
We don't like mansions.
We don't like large compounds.
We don't like curving driveways.
And one thing a wealth tax does is it hurts those people and prevents, makes it more difficult for them to accumulate those gargantuan sums of wealth.
I think this is not really an American way to think because Americans don't mind people being successful, even immensely successful, as long as they are justly successful, as long as they earned the money As opposed to having, you may say, stolen it.
Now, when we turn to the wealth tax, what really is the argument for going after these multimillionaires and billionaires?
Elizabeth Warren, interestingly, makes one an argument based upon COVID. She goes, under COVID, small businesses have been crippled.
Whereas these large businesses like Amazon have accumulated tons of money.
They've gotten even richer.
And this is true.
This is actually true. And I don't have any sympathy, by the way, for Jeff Bezos.
And the fact that a lot of these billionaires are Democrats and are voting for the left...
I'm not going to be the one rushing to protect their gargantuan fortunes.
If some people want to come take it away, in some ways I think they've signed up for it.
So they're going to get what they deserve.
But the question is, how did the small businesses that Elizabeth Warren is now shedding these tears over, how did they get destroyed?
And the answer, quite simply, is the government destroyed them.
Elizabeth Warren helped destroy them.
The U.S. federal government, in conjunction with state governments, created a lockdown scenario in which small businesses were crippled and large businesses like Walmart and Target were let off the hook.
So is it any great surprise that you ended up...
Helping the big guy and hurting the little guy.
That wasn't the result of the market.
The government did that.
The government bears the responsibility.
So having committed the crime, if you can call it that, the government's now running, oh, we have the solution!
It's almost like the arsonist showing up as the firefighter.
You set the fire.
You're responsible. And so on that grounds, I'm very distrustful of this government remedy to inequality.
Now, my other argument, which I think is the key to the whole thing, is that Elizabeth Warren wants to transfer money from these ultra-rich guys, let's say Bill Gates, Elon Musk, Bezos, over to whom?
She's making it sound like it's being transferred to little teachers and it's being transferred to lots of little people.
But no, it's being actually transferred to 435 members of Congress and 100 senators.
And instead of Jeff Bezos spending the money, they spend it.
Instead of Elon Musk spending the money, they spend it.
So here's the point. If you're a really rich guy, people think, oh, well, you know, money doesn't have very much marginal utility.
What possibly can you do?
You can only wear one pair of pants at a time.
You can only eat three meals a day.
What are you going to do? How can you spend all that money?
And you know what? That's true.
A rich guy can only do three things with his money.
He can spend it. And if he does that, he creates jobs, he employs waiters and domestic staff and pilots to fly his planes, or he can save it and put it in some bank where it will earn interest and be loaned out to companies starting new entrepreneurial ventures, or he can invest it.
Or you can give it away.
And if he gives it away, and of course many of these philanthropists have pledged to give away large portions of their fortunes.
In some cases, the vast majority of it.
So here's the question. Who do you trust to wisely spend Bill Gates' money or Elon Musk's money?
Bill Gates and Elon Musk?
Or 535 guys who have done nothing to earn that money?
And my answer is...
And I know there are all kinds of questions around Bill Gates, you know, what's he trying to do with the pandemic?
But the bottom line of it is he did make that money, and it is his.
And he's probably going to spend it a little more wisely himself, and so is Elon Musk, and so is Bezos.
Then, if you turned it over to these, this is like turning over the car keys to teenage boys when you give large amounts of cash to these congressmen and senators.
Why? Because they're going to spend it to buy votes.
It's not that they're just going to spend it for the public good.
Anyone who's that naive doesn't really know how these people think or how they operate.
That money becomes the currency to ensure these people's power and re-election.
And not to mention in many cases, Biden being a classic example, the money somehow funnels right back to themselves.
It may funnel in a circuitous route, but it ends up a good bit of it in their pockets all the same.
Bottom line of it is, I don't like the wealth tax because I don't trust the federal government.
You can't trust people who are spending other people's money to spend it wisely.
They end up spending it in some way for their own benefit and for their own gain.
This is a very bad idea.
Republicans should do whatever they can to block it.
You never thought COVID could cost you your home, right?
It just might because cybercrime is up 75%.
And by far the most serious cybercrime to worry about is home title theft.
The job of the criminals is easier than you think.
The title documents to our homes are now online.
The thief finds your home's title and forges your signature on a quit-claim deed stating you sold your home to him.
Then he takes out loans on your home and leaves you in debt.
You won't know until late payment or eviction notices arrive.
Insurance doesn't cover you and neither do common identity theft programs.
That's why I protect my home with Home Title Lock.
The instant Home Title Lock detects someone tampering with my home's title, they help shut it down.
Go to HomeTitleLock.com and register your address to see if you are already a victim.
Then use code RADIO to receive 30 days of free protection.
That's code RADIO at HomeTitleLock.com.
What is the root of this intolerance or illiberalism that we see now across the United States?
An illiberalism that we see on the campus, in the universities where conservative students are hounded, bullied, accused of violating safe spaces, and stigmatized.
An illiberalism we see in Hollywood.
Where if you are a conservative screenwriter or actor, you are targeted.
They want you to run out of town.
We're not going to find work for you in this town again.
And so literally the conservative group in Hollywood meets in secret.
And then we see it in the media, most notably in digital media, this idea that the Silicon Valley moguls work in league with the left and the Democratic Party to shut people down and shut them up and kick them off social media, essentially make them into digital, you may say, non-persons, using technology itself, which links us, to cut people off and shut them up.
And the writer, Victor Davis Hanson, One of our smartest political commentators in America today has an essay in which he talks about this and he's talking about, the title of the essay is, Why Are Progressives So Illiberal?
Illiberal. His point is that they're supposed to be liberals.
For many years, they called themselves liberals.
So how did the liberals become illiberal?
This is the theme of the article.
By the way, it appears on a website I recommend to you called American Greatness.
A good website has a lot of good articles.
And Victor Davis Hanson is looking at the roots of this illiberalism.
What happened? And he really gives two reasons.
He goes, first, this illiberalism is rooted in progressive history.
The progressives have their roots in the early 20th century movements, which happen to have been quite illiberal.
Social Darwinism, for example, which targeted minorities, looked upon blacks as inferior.
Margaret Sanger was a part of that, for example.
The progressive admiration for Mussolini, again, suppressed in our textbooks.
Historians don't like to talk about it.
It shows that Mussolini himself was on the left, but Victor Davis Hanson knows, and it's right there in his article.
And he goes, it's understandable that progressivism has always had this kind of affection, you might say, for strongmen, dictators of the left, who muscle their citizens into submission.
That's the first reason.
The second reason, says Hansen, is progressivism, interesting quote, progressives believe in natural hierarchies.
In other words, although progressives talk about equality, says Hansen, they believe they're superior.
They are the elite. They are the ones who have been sort of ordained, if not God, then by themselves, to supervise society.
The people are down here.
These are the people who, like, want guns and Bibles.
They're kind of basically the riff-raff that the progressives need to control and direct.
So the illiberalism comes out of this desire, and it's not too much to call it a tyrannical desire, to push people around and make them believe things and make them do things that you want.
So I think these two reasons given by Hansen are correct, but he's missing a third one.
That the reason the liberals became illiberal Is because they could.
In other words, this is the Machiavellian reason.
They never really believed in liberalism per se.
Liberalism for them was tactical.
When they were on the outside, they used liberalism.
Oh, please have tolerance!
Please tolerate us!
But the moment that they got into the universities and they began to control the departments, they turned on outsiders and said, keep them out!
Yeah, we can have some diversity in the economics department.
We just want seven types of Marxists around here.
And that's, by the way, the so-called diversity in many departments.
There are people who think exactly alike.
But they are, in a sense, members of different sects within the same leftist cause.
Or they're all identical thinking leftists, but one is black, one is a woman, one is gay, and so on.
They're essentially the identity politics version of diversity.
Now, I'm not saying the left is unique in this.
I think it's true, probably, that other institutions, including, for example, the medieval church, which had practiced censorship, had an index of prohibited books, and all of this was because the medieval church had the power.
The moment the church loses the power to control the discourse, it then appeals to liberalism.
It appeals to tolerance. It appeals to religious freedom.
And so we see the same story on the part of the left.
Once they were out of power, once they were not in the mainstream, they posed as liberals to be given a fair hearing, to have their speech heard, to have themselves included.
But the moment they were included, They changed their stripes.
They showed their true colors, you might say.
And they became the illiberals, the intolerant people, that at bottom, they always were.
Do you think there's a coincidence in Biden signing over 40 executive orders in his first couple of weeks of office and the price of silver skyrocketing?
No. It's no coincidence.
Savvy investors know that precious metals are a hedge against inflation and government stupidity.
And Birch Gold Group is not only your headquarters for gold, but silver also.
If you want to purchase physical gold or silver, drop shipped straight to your door.
Or help converting an IRA or eligible 401k into an IRA backed by gold and silver, Birch Gold Group is your solution.
They are the premier precious metals IRA company in America with an A-plus Better Business Bureau rating, countless five-star reviews, and thousands of satisfied customers.
And guess what? I'm one of them.
There's a tidal wave of inflation coming.
Gold and silver are your hedge.
Text Dinesh to 484848 for your free information kit on a precious metals IRA or to speak with a Birch Gold representative today.
Time is running out, but you can protect your savings now.
Text Dinesh to 484848.
It's time for the mailbox, and we have our first audio question.
Listen. Hi Dinesh, my name is Alan.
I'm calling you from Los Angeles.
And I have a question for you about women's sports.
We've all noticed lately that the left has been pushing an agenda that transgendered people, i.e.
men who have transitioned to becoming women, should be allowed to compete in women's sports.
There is somewhat of an uproar over this because the men have a physical advantage in terms of strength and speed and muscle mass and other things like that.
Some people claim it's leading to the destruction of women's sports.
My question for you is, let's assume that that's true.
Maybe it's time to get rid of women's sports anyway.
We've always assumed that men and women should have separate sports leagues because of the difference in size and strength between the two.
Isn't that just another form of separate but equal?
I mean you could make the argument that they should just compete.
I mean men and women compete in the workplace.
They compete in corporate America.
You even mentioned I think that there are separate men's and women's chess leagues which I find very interesting.
I'm wondering how people wrap their heads around that.
So I'd love to get your thoughts on whether you think we're heading towards a world where there are no more men's and women's sports.
There's just sports.
And let the best person win.
Love to hear your thoughts.
Thanks. This is a fascinating question.
Let me start by talking a little bit about chess, because chess is a purely intellectual game, a game of strategy.
I started playing maybe when I was seven or eight.
There was a pilot who rented a room in our house, at the back of our house, and he taught me to play.
Chess involves no element of luck at all.
It's a purely intellectual game.
So on the premise that men and women are of equal intellectual capability, there's really no reason to separate men and women in chess.
Now, prudentially, they have a division.
They have a women's world chess championship.
Women only play women. And as far as I know, no transgender male has tried to sneak into the women's chess section.
And the reason they do that is because for whatever reason, and the reason is worth thinking about, and I have my own theories about it, but nevertheless, the truth of the matter is in the top 100 players in the world today, as far as I know, there's only one woman, a woman from China.
And she is in somewhere around 88, number 88.
Now, assuming that men and women are equal on the intellectual front, which I think is a safe assumption.
By the way, the average IQ of men and women is the same.
It's 100. There's a complete difference when you move into the physical sphere because now there is a huge average difference between men and women, a difference in height and strength and speed and so on.
And for this reason, in pretty much every sport from skiing, To tennis, to obviously violin sports like mixed martial arts, you do have separate but equal.
Men play against men, women play against women.
And the reason is really simple. If you eliminated that and had a single tournament, women wouldn't Rarely, if ever, even appear on the field, at least at the very highest levels.
In a sense, you obliterate women's sports completely.
So women's sports exists for the protection of women.
You may almost say that it is a hint of paternalism, but it's paternalism based upon nature, the fact that there are natural differences, physical differences between men and women, and they're acknowledged in having separate games or separate tracks For these two groups.
Now, if you impose on nature this kind of uniformitarian ideology, which basically goes, even though there are these biological differences, let's pretend that they don't exist.
Let's cancel out nature itself.
Then you end up canceling out women's sports.
So am I in favor of that?
No, because I think at the end of the day, Men and women are delightfully different, but they are different.
And having men's sports and women's sports, kind of like having men's bathrooms and women's bathrooms, is ultimately showing respect for the dignity of this difference, which is part of the way we are in the world and always have been.
Subscribe to the Dinesh D'Souza podcast on Apple, Google, and Spotify.
▲
Export Selection