All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 4, 2021 - Dinesh D'Souza
59:20
THE GREAT RESET Dinesh D’Souza Podcast Ep19
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
AOC goes full Christine Blasey Ford.
Ted Cruz is on the other side of the door!
I think he wants to kill me!
Plus, the strange career of Ilhan Omar.
And Congresswoman Lauren Boebert joins to sound off.
This is the Dinesh D'Souza Podcast.
I want to talk to you about my pillow and how it absolutely changed Debbie's sleeping habits.
When she started sleeping on Mike's pillow, she began sleeping through the night because of that change of life.
She tried everything else and nothing worked until she found this wonderful pillow.
She also has one of the body pillows.
The cool thing is that they won't go flat.
You can wash and dry them as many times as you want and they keep their shape.
They're made in the USA. For a limited time, Mike Lindell, the great guy, CEO of MyPillow, is offering his premium MyPillows for his lowest price ever.
You can get a queen-size premium MyPillow for $29.98.
It's normally $69.98, so that's $40 savings.
King pillows are just $5 more.
Not only are you getting the lowest price ever, $29.98 for the queen size premium, but Mike is extending his 60 day money back guarantee.
Go to mypillow.com, click on the radio listener square and just use promo code Dinesh.
Mike has over 100 products, you get discounts on all of them, including the Geezer Dream bed sheets, the MyPillow mattress topper, and MyPillow towel sets.
Call 800-876-0227 or just go to mypillow.com.
make sure to use promo code Dinesh.
America needs this voice.
The times are crazy in a time of confusion, division, and lies.
We need a brave voice of reason, understanding, and truth.
This is the Dinesh D'Souza Podcast.
Have you heard the phrase, the Great Reset?
And I don't just mean in terms of resetting our relations with Russia.
I'm talking about the Great Reset of the whole world.
This was the resounding theme, and it's been a theme now for two years straight at the World Economic Forum, the kind of elite meeting that occurs in Davos, Switzerland.
World leaders come together.
And Klaus Schwab, the leader of the World Economic Forum, has talked about the need to remake capitalism.
He says, we've got to get away from this idea of entrepreneurs and customers.
Everybody is, quote, a stakeholder.
So everybody has a say in how capitalism and companies are organized.
Here's a short video.
Made by the World Economic Forum talking about how everything needs to change.
Recovery from the pandemic is an opportunity.
We can see rays of hope in the form of a vaccine, but there is no vaccine for the planet.
Nature needs a bail-off.
You don't want to go back to the status quo that you had before simply because it was the status quo that got us here.
With everything falling apart, we can reshape the world in ways we couldn't before.
Ways that better address so many of the challenges we face.
And that's why so many are calling for a great reset.
Thank you. If you suspect that something fishy is going on here, you're quite right.
Here's Klaus Schwab.
The world must act jointly and swiftly to revamp all aspects of our societies and economies, from education to social contracts and working conditions.
Every country from the United States to China must participate in every industry, from oil and gas to tech, must be transformed.
We need a great reset of capitalism.
Right away you think, a great reset of capitalism?
Well, nothing's gone wrong with capitalism.
If anything, it's these governments around the world that have completely botched their response to the virus.
So how can the virus be used as a kind of pretext to transform what has been working and leave alone government failures, what has not been working?
Now, the Biden administration is completely on board with this great reset.
We know this because John Kerry Was at the World Economic Forum and a number of panels organized by these people.
And he says the Great Reset, quote, will happen with greater speed and greater intensity than a lot of people imagine.
In fact, he describes the election as a reset in the United States that goes along with this Great Reset.
Now, these people have in mind not just a transformation of markets or economies, but a transformation of human behavior.
This is why they talk about the tech industry stepping in.
They're all on board with regulating people's lives.
The question I want to ask is, to what end?
What is it that they're trying to do?
Are they trying to remake the world?
No. What they're really trying to do is to remake human nature.
They are trying to create, you may say, a new man.
Now this seems like a radical idea, and it certainly is.
The idea of creating a new man has been common to all kinds of leftist utopian schemes going right back into the 19th century.
The early socialist movements were all utopian and spoke in very devotional terms about transforming human nature itself.
Marx was all about creating a new man under communism.
Human nature itself, he said, would become something totally different.
But it wasn't just the socialists who were on this.
There was also Nietzsche who talks about creating a new man.
Nietzsche calls him the ubermunch, the overman or some say superman.
Human nature itself rises above its kind of inadequacies and becomes something totally different.
Nietzsche calls this philosophy a philosophy for people who live in ice and high mountains, a kind of ascent to a higher state of being.
Now, There are roots in early Christianity and I would say even in the American founding of the idea of creating a new man.
In Christianity, the Apostle Paul speaks about the new man.
The old Adam is dead and the new Adam is represented by Christ.
And the American founders spoke about a new type of regime, a new type of society that would generate a new type of man.
Their phrase was the Novus Ordo Seclorum, which really means a new order for the ages.
America was going to create something new in the world, and this new type of constitution would help to constitute, to frame, and to shape a new type of man.
Now, here's the important difference, though.
For the Christians and for the American founders, this new man was based on human nature.
There was no desire to abolish or get rid of human nature.
This was in fact considered ridiculous.
Under Christianity, we can only live in what Augustine calls the city of God.
Augustine in The City of God contrasts The City of God with The City of Man, but The City of Man is the Earth.
As long as we're human beings, we live in The City of Man.
We can aspire to The City of God, but we don't get there until we reach the next world.
Similarly, for the American founders, the idea was to anchor their new type of society in human nature.
Based on a realistic understanding of human nature, and their understanding was that human nature is flawed.
That's why we need all these checks and balances, separation of power is limits on the government to prevent warped human nature from abusing power.
But of course for the left, the idea of creating a new man is transformational.
This is what they are all about.
And the problem is that because human nature doesn't change, can't be changed, all you can do is beat up on it.
All you can do is be cruel.
All you can do is attempt to force what cannot be achieved through persuasion.
Alexander Solzhenitsyn, the great Russian dissident thinker, raised an interesting question once when he said,"...even in Shakespeare's greatest tragedies, they kill one guy or two guys or five guys, but you don't kill a million guys." Or 10 million, the way that these leftist regimes from the National Socialists in Germany to Lenin and Stalin in Russia, how do you get to that scale of killing?
And the answer is actually really simple.
You do it because you're not killing a human being.
You're killing in the name of an ideology.
The ideology sanctifies mass slaughter that you find no analog for, nothing similar in the ancient world.
And that's a danger we need to be alert to because our left today is all about the reset.
They're all about the new man.
And you can see that we, the conservatives, the patriots, the Christians, we resist this.
We say, that doesn't make any sense.
Our human nature rebels against it.
And so they go, let's apply more force.
Let's censor you. Let's bully you.
Let's lock you up. And it's only one step from, let's treat you like terrorists.
Let's make you into domestic enemies.
Let's make you into ISIS. Let's kill you.
Let's bomb you. Let's get rid of you.
And then, of course, that dreaded word of the 20th century, let's exterminate you.
Why? Because your human nature is not submitting to us.
This is the terrible, bloody legacy of trying to take human nature as it is and make it into something that it isn't and never could be.
Digital media censorship has become a major problem.
But even if you keep your digital accounts, you don't have to give big tech websites access to your data.
That's why I choose to protect my online activity by using ExpressVPN.
You can do social media for free, but ever wonder how these social media companies make all their money?
Well, by tracking your searches, video history, and everything you click on, and then selling your valuable data.
When you use ExpressVPN, you make much of your online presence anonymous by hiding your IP address.
That makes your activity more difficult to trace and sell to advertisers.
What's more, ExpressVPN encrypts 100% of your data to protect you from eavesdroppers on your network.
And the ExpressVPN app is easy to use.
You just tap one button on your phone or computer and you're protected.
Take back your online privacy with the virtual private network iTrust at ExpressVPN.com slash Dinesh.
You can get an extra three months of ExpressVPN service for free on a one-year package.
Go to ExpressVPN.com slash Dinesh.
Again, that's ExpressVPN.com slash Dinesh to protect your data today.
Democrats today are resolved to boot Marjorie Taylor Greene off her two committees because, you know, she's got all these extreme views.
I had Marjorie Taylor Greene on the podcast yesterday, and she struck me as coming across as very sensible, somebody who is a patriot, an ordinary person, a normal person, and yet they're trying to portray her as some sort of an extremist.
Now, the truth of it is, there are some real extremists on the left, and somehow they don't get booted.
This is something for Republicans to keep in mind, because what the Democrats are saying with Marjorie Taylor Greene is, listen, we, the majority party, have the right to tell you, the minority, who gets to be on your committees.
We get to determine even your selection on your committees.
And this sets a terrible precedent.
I think Republicans should say, okay, you know what?
If we take the House two years from now, we're going to start kicking Democrats of their committees.
We're going to do to you what you are doing to us.
But let's talk for a moment about Ilhan Omar because she is far more extreme than Marjorie Taylor Greene.
She's been involved in much, many more scandals.
I mean, Marjorie Taylor Greene has just arrived in Congress, whereas Ilhan Omar has been doing shenanigans one on top of the other.
So let's look at a few. First of all, she seems to have married her brother to skirt the immigration laws.
And if you carefully look at how this happened, you can see that there's an evidence trail.
Now, Ilhan has gone back and deleted emails and texts and tweets that show this trail.
But the trail exists and there are people who have preserved it.
Ilhan Omar has also been funneling all kinds of money.
To the man who is now her husband.
Initially she was having an affair with him.
He was her campaign consultant.
So all this money, in fact, according to a Fox News report, $2.8 million slips under the table.
And really right back into Ilhan Omar's own pocket, in effect, because she married the guy.
Project Veritas goes into Ilhan Omar's district.
Literally records people paying money in a kind of voter corruption scheme.
And it's right there on tape.
And then Ilhan Omar has campaign finance violations.
So the question then becomes, how does this woman have complete immunity?
What protects her? How does she get away with it?
And the answer, as far as the left and the media is concerned, is because she is the ultimate victim.
It's important to realize how people like Ilhan Omar play the victim card.
And they claim not just to be a single victim, but a victim on multiple fronts.
You can be a victim, for example, by being a person of color.
That's kind of, you may say, bonus point one.
But then if you're also a woman, you're a twofer.
You get bonus point two.
So let's look at Ilhan Omar.
She is black.
She gets one point. She is a woman.
Two points. She is from the desert.
Three points. She is also a Muslim who wears the hijab.
Four points! So in the perverted logic of intersectionality, this is a term where you add up all your victim claims.
Basically, you can say Ilhan Omar has seized the bottom rung on the ladder.
She claims to be the most victimized of all.
And as a result, she enjoys the greatest protection of all, the greatest immunity.
And so whenever someone criticizes her, the media rush to her defense.
All the so-called fact-checking sites jump in and inverting logic and inverting reality.
Oh, no, no, no, there's nothing here, folks.
Move on, move on. So this is Ilhan Omar.
But quite apart from these scandals, there's a deep, insidious connection.
Between the left and the radical Muslims that Ilhan Omar represents.
And that's puzzling to many people.
It's not obvious why these two groups, one that claims to be liberal, the left, and the radical Muslims would be perhaps the most illiberal forces in the world.
How do these groups come together?
Now, in the movie Trump Card, I interviewed an imam who used to be a radical, who used to be a fundamentalist.
Who gives us the inside scoop on Ilhan Omar and also the larger ties between the left and radical Islam.
Listen. What is the fundamentalist and jihadi agenda for America?
The future of America has to be Muslim.
So here's a paradox. In America, we have a political left.
It's a progressive left.
As you know, it's sexually permissive.
And this political movement appears strangely allied.
With radical Islam.
Can you explain this?
When I was an extremist, Islamist, fundamentalist, I would only vote left.
Why is that? I saw them as very stupid.
I would fear the conservatives because they come with principle.
That's not someone they can brainwash.
But the left, I know they have no values and no principles to begin with.
I dare you to find one Islamic extremist that votes for Donald Trump.
Never do it. They give their vote to the leftist who wants to run around in pride parades.
Islamic extremists are against gays and homosexuals and transgenders, but they want the left to go and get busy with that.
They want them, go, go, go speak about the climate, go, go, go speak about abortion, go, go kill yourselves, go, go do that.
Ilhan Omar, she's fighting for abortion rights and all the other...
My body, my choice?
Yes, go do that. But would she have an abortion?
Never. Never.
Would she kill a Muslim in her stomach?
Never. What's your take on her?
Fundamentalist, extremist, Islamist, jihadi ideology, a threat to national security, ISIS with lipstick.
I think the conclusion from this is obvious.
Marjorie Taylor Greene isn't the threat.
But with Ilhan Omar, we have a real threat.
A threat not just of someone who believes, quote, conspiracy theories or has outlandish views, but somebody who is a real threat to our national security.
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 up for values that have made America great—faith, family, and freedom.
They believe in the sanctity of the Constitution, including our First and Second Amendments.
They're fighting against the ever-expanding scope of the federal government.
They are pro-small business, secure 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.
Debbie and I, our lifetime members, go to amac.us and join now.
Join AMAC today. The website again, amac.us.
On yesterday's podcast, when I talked about Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and her dramatic video about crouching in terror as terrorists were trying to storm her building, I didn't know.
I assumed that AOC was in the Capitol.
And that even if she wasn't directly threatened, she was in at the venue where all these, quote, insurgents and MAGA terrorists were present.
I did think that AOC was faking it.
I'm kind of a movie guy, and so I was watching her carefully, and there was that, you know, lights, camera, action, cut element to it.
And so I detected the fakery.
I was sort of onto it to that degree.
But what I didn't know was the extent of the fakery.
AOC wasn't even there.
Her office is in the Cannon Building, which is a third of a mile.
From the action.
No insurgents entered her building.
So her description is completely made up.
It's fake. It's bogus.
Because she literally said directly...
I'm going to now quote her.
She's talking about the fact that she was...
Nearly assassinated.
And in fact, she goes, it's not an exaggeration to say many members of the house were nearly assassinated.
And of course, the funny thing is her story was picked up hook, line, and sinker.
Well, here's a column by Jill...
She talks about the mob sacking the Capitol.
She gives the clear impression that AOC is right there.
She goes, this woman should go into screenwriting.
And then another Democratic congresswoman, Katie Porter, said that AOC showed up in her office.
Now, Katie Porter is in another building called the Longworth Building, which is also a long ways from the Capitol and was also not stormed.
But according to Katie Porter, AOC says...
I knew I shouldn't have worn heels.
How am I going to run?
So Katie Porter goes, AOC felt that she had to run for her life.
Now, she also told Porter reportedly, I just hope I get to be a mom.
I hope I don't die today.
This is a woman, by the way, who earlier said, accused Ted Cruz of wanting to kill her.
She said in a tweet, she said that she'd be happy to work with Republicans, but not Republicans like Ted Cruz who are part of a plot to get her assassinated.
Now, Representative Nancy Mace, Republican, but a bit of a never-Trumper, tweeted out, My office is two doors down from AOC. Insurrectionists never stormed our hallway.
So Nancy Mace is saying, AOC is making it up.
And you can see, I'm just going to put it up on the screen for a moment, but I'll describe it.
You can see this map of the U.S. Capitol.
You see the Capitol, and a long distance away, you see Representative Katie Porter's office.
That's the Longworth building. And then even further away, you see the Cannon House office building, and it's not even close to the Capitol.
Now, What's really going on with AOC? I'm reminded first of all of Christine Blasey Ford and that big lie.
Now the reason that you know it's a lie or at least you're tipped off is because when someone's lying they always describe events that are difficult to check.
So when Christine Blasey Ford was saying Telling about the events with Kavanaugh, notice that she was very specific about the things that no one could check.
So, for example, she's really specific about who did it to her.
Kavanaugh. That's her target.
She's also really specific about what he did.
Oh, he wrestled me, he threw me on the bed, he jumped on me, he did this, he did that.
Because, after all, that's something that only you would know.
But what she's unspecific about is anything that can be checked out.
Where did this happen, exactly?
And the reason it's hard for her to say where is because someone else could go, well, I live there.
Or I know that club.
And when did it happen exactly?
What was the day and what was roughly the time?
And again, you can't do that because people could go, well, I was there.
I was at that place at that time.
Nothing like that ever happened.
So you become mysteriously and kind of cloudy about all the things that can be checked out.
There's another story that jumped to mind.
I actually looked it up because it's so fascinating.
This is a story of a woman named Tanya Head who had claimed to be dramatically present at 9-11.
She was in the fiery buildings and she described very emotionally her husband was in the building and he got killed and she named him.
And she said that a dying man handed her a ring and said, please give this to my wife.
And then she said she ended up in a hospital unit with burns, only to find out that her husband had been killed in the North Tower.
Now, the only problem with this incredible story reported and widely described by the media was that none of it was true.
First of all, her name isn't Tanya Head.
She never went, as she said, she went to Harvard and Stanford.
She said she worked at Maryland.
She never did. She's actually from Spain, from Barcelona.
Her name is Alicia Esteve.
She's not married to the guy who was supposedly the husband who died.
She made the whole thing up.
And you might say she is a narcissist and a psycho.
And to some degree, that's probably true, just as it's true of AOC. She's a narcissist.
She's borderline psycho.
But in the end, it's also there's this seeming craving for people to put themselves at the center of the action, to make, you may say, the world of crisis revolve around them.
And this craving for public attention, public sympathy, this idea that you are somehow the main actor in a global drama.
What I find particularly sickening about the AOC event is that she's doubling down.
If she were genuinely mistaken, let's just say she was not under threat, but she felt she was, she'd then go, Now, phew!
What a relief. I thought my life was in danger.
I thought I'd have to run for my life.
But fortunately, I was safe.
And I want to be thankful to the Capitol Police Office, who was kind of the only guy who came into my office.
I was never in any real danger.
But no, she doubles down.
She basically goes, this is the latest manipulative take on the right.
And then she adds, the bombs Trump supporters planted surrounded our offices to.
First of all, The pipe bombs were not at the Capitol.
They were not at the Cannon Building.
They were not at the Longwood Building.
They were at the offices of the RNC and the DNC. And to this day, no one knows who planted them.
So this is all made-up lies, trying to throw in some more fuel on the flames, if you will.
Now, Debbie and I were talking about this earlier today, and we were thinking, how would someone think they could get away with this?
And the answer is because she is AOC. She always has.
She goes about this chronic lying in the same way that Clinton went about his rampant sexual predation.
Why? Because he knew he could get away with it, as he has.
AOC knows that you've got all these robotic cheerleaders in the media.
No matter what she does, they will cover for her.
They will protect her.
They will take her lies and claim that they are the gospel truth.
Hey, if you know the D'Souzas, we are very selective with our partnerships, and Eggert Watches is a company we are genuinely excited about.
The CEO, Elon, is an immigrant entrepreneur, American success story.
His company creates exceptional products, but Elon also cares about American values and has his own voice.
Debbie and I watched some of the powerful videos on the Eggert website recently.
You need to visit yourself to see all the short films that they've created.
What is Freedom? is the first short film you'll see posted.
Elon put his company on the line to take a stance on current issues like censorship facing America.
Especially today, it's really refreshing to see a business take a stand on principle.
But it's not the first time they've taken a risk.
Elon was awarded the Fox Patriot Award after he stood up for the police, releasing a film during the whole Defund the Police movement called Speak Truth.
Finally, they made a video celebrating men called What Is A Man in response to Gillette Corporation painting the picture of toxic masculinity in American culture with a recent ad campaign.
Again, all these videos can be accessed on the front page of their website.
Most important of all, Eggert makes incredible watches.
Debbie and I are both wearing one today.
Check mine out.
Look at the craftsmanship, the uniqueness.
It's something to marvel at.
They feel a lot more expensive than they are.
Elon gave us a wonderful discount of 15% off to share using the promo code Dinesh at the checkout.
So now you have two reasons to visit egardwatches.com, come for the watches, and stay for the conservative films.
Lauren Boebert is a newly elected freshman congresswoman who is part of the sort of new face of the GOP. And I'm delighted to have her here on the podcast.
Lauren, welcome to the podcast.
May I start by asking you what you came to DC to do?
Tell a little bit about who you are, your background, and why you ran for Congress and what you hope to accomplish.
Well, thanks so much for having me on your new podcast.
This is exciting. I'm excited for you and the lives that you are going to change with this show.
I'm one of them.
I certainly have read your books.
I've watched your films.
And it was a part of this gradual stirring to want to be a part of the solution to all of the things I was complaining about.
I'm not a politician.
I was fed up with politicians.
I was tired of people telling me one thing to get elected, but then they get to the state capitol, they get to Washington, D.C., and they forget who they work for.
They forget who sent them there.
And our Bill of Rights, our Constitution, this is very important to me.
This is what makes America exceptional.
Too many of these elected officials weren't standing to secure our rights, to defend our freedom.
They were giving it away.
That was very frustrating to me.
I'm a small business owner and I understand how over-regulation cripples small business owners and how capitalism and free markets work.
They encourage A prosperous future for all of us, and globally even.
I was raised in a Democrat home, and so I understand that these policies that were being force-fed, these lies that were being told, they're destructive.
It's designed to control individuals, to control families, to destroy the nuclear family.
And it actually gets the American people in a cycle of poverty when you depend on these leftist policies.
That's exactly where I was growing up.
My mom believed those lies.
She believed that that was the best way to take care of her children.
But that resulted in us standing in bread lines.
I stood in line for government cheese in the United States of America.
That's not the American dream.
But when I started working for myself, I put my hand to something, saw that I had the power to create wealth for myself.
I had control of my own destiny, of my own future.
I became a self-taught conservative because those principles were working in my life.
And now I'm teaching these same principles.
To my children. And I feel that now more than ever, it's my duty, it's my obligation to secure the American dream for generations to come.
Dinesh, I have four boys and I'm raising my boys to love America.
I'm raising my boys to be men, to be strong leaders.
And I know that that doesn't come from safe spaces or entitlement or government handouts.
It comes from the American dream that's available.
And I I want to make sure that that's there for generations to come.
Lauren, Debbie and I met you, what, about a year before you ran for Congress.
We met you and you told a very fascinating story about Shooter's Grill and about how not only you but all the other employees, your employees, were carrying guns and a reporter stopped by and they thought it was some sort of a prank or they thought that you were putting on some kind of a Disney show.
They had no idea that you actually carried and so did your staff.
Talk a little bit about why you did that and about the importance of the Second Amendment.
Absolutely. So, growing up in a Democrat home, I was taught guns are bad.
Why are they bad? Because they look scary and bad people sometimes use them to do bad things.
Growing up, I began to debunk many of these theories that I was raised to believe.
When I became a business owner, that was during a hardship.
My husband and I took a risk in opening a restaurant.
We didn't have experience in a restaurant like ours.
My husband worked in the oil and gas industry.
And for the first time, he was laid off.
And we had four children.
So what are we going to do?
We took a risk. We invested.
We opened a restaurant.
And at first, we were just Western-themed.
We were in Rifle, Colorado.
It's the only city in America named after a gun.
But shortly after we opened Shooter's Grill, there was an altercation where a man was brutally beaten outside of my restaurant.
And immediately I wondered how I would protect everyone.
What would I do if someone came in and was a potential threat?
And that's when I took advantage of Colorado's open carry laws.
I began practicing shooting tactical training, weapons retention training.
All sorts of things so I could be prepared in case there was a potential larger aggressor that came our way.
Soon after I began to carry, my waitresses began to carry.
And Shooter's Grill has been called the safest restaurant in America because all of our waitresses practice our Second Amendment rights.
This is awesome.
We're going to take a short break, a short word from MyPillow.
We'll be right back. MyPillow has actually become part of my daily life.
I wake up in the morning and I'm on the MyPillow Giza dream sheets or the flannel sheets, which are really awesome.
Then we get our coffee and our lattes going and we're in Mike Lindell's robes and they're unbelievably comfortable.
They're fantastic. And so MyPillow is really something we use all the time.
We use their towels, we use their robes, we use their sheets, we use their pillows.
And Mike is offering a special on his Giza Dream Sheets, which are available in a wide range of colors.
Like all of Mike's products, they come with a 60-day money-back guarantee.
And a 10-year warranty.
So right now, you can buy one, get one free on the sheets by calling 800-876-0227 and using promo code Dinesh.
Mike has over 100 products and he's offering discounts on all of them.
But for a limited time, buy one, get one free on the sheets.
Call 800-876-0227 or go to MyPillow.com.
Just remember to use promo code Dinesh.
Lauren, welcome back to the podcast.
Nancy Pelosi said recently that she needed to tighten the security measures and the automatic detection machines in the Capitol.
And she almost implied like she was in, and Democrats are in fear of other things.
Republican House members and perhaps Senate members who pose a physical danger to them.
What do you make of this kind of, you may almost say unprecedented type of insinuation?
Well, with most of the rhetoric that comes from the Speaker of the House, It's hypocrisy on full display.
On January 6th, we didn't have a threat within.
The threat came from outside.
I was in the House chambers when the building was breached, and I saw the Speaker of the House get whisked away by her detail team.
I didn't know what was going on.
None of us were informed that there was a threat in the building.
The Speaker just left in the middle of another member's testimony.
And I thought this was another political stunt by the Speaker of the House, much like her tearing up the State of the Union paper.
And then doors started slamming all around us and the members were locked in.
So while the speakers whisked away to safety, the members are locked inside.
And I can tell you, Dinesh, we were not looking to one another saying, I hope there are enough magnetometers outside right now.
No, we needed a way to protect ourselves.
And now Speaker Pelosi has announced to the world that all 435 members, when they are in the House chambers, are completely disarmed with no way to protect ourselves, no way to defend our lives.
She made a statement to the world saying that our lives...
Don't matter. They're not valued like hers is.
And, you know, the speaker clearly understands security when it comes to herself.
We've seen the tremendous border wall that's been built around the United States Capitol.
We see the armed National Guard.
maybe we should go have an inauguration at the southern border and we can get that secure because certainly these walls are working here.
You get a clear idea of who they want to protect and who they don't think deserves protection.
So walls work, it seems, when it comes to Washington, DC, but they don't work when it comes to the border.
Let me just ask you one more question.
You've talked about Washington, DC and how as a young, as a woman who is petite And in a dangerous city, it's kind of helpful to feel like you have a gun to protect yourself.
Talk a little bit about being in Washington D.C. and the sense of vulnerability that makes you feel that, hey, in this situation, a gun might be a woman's best friend.
Absolutely. When you're talking about women's rights, I think having an equalizer for a woman against a larger potential aggressor Is key.
Look, there was an altercation where a man lost his life in Rifle, Colorado, population of 9,000.
Now here I am in Washington, D.C., where the crime rate is 158% times higher than the national average.
I'm 5'0", 100 pounds.
I can't really defend myself physically.
I need an equalizer if something were to happen.
Dinesh, here in Washington, D.C., I don't have a security detail following me around.
I am my own security, so I need a way to protect myself, and others need that as well.
And so here in Washington, D.C., I am going to stand to defend our Second Amendment right along with every other right that we have endowed to us by our Creator, not by government, not by politicians who want to take them away so badly.
Because if we don't take a stand for it here in our nation's capital, who's to say that anyone will ever defend someone else's right across the country?
Lauren, that's awesome. Thanks for coming on the podcast.
I really appreciate it. I look forward to talking with you again.
Yes, thank you so much, Dinesh.
Joe Biden has signed over 40 executive orders in his first couple of weeks in office.
And no coincidence, the price of silver has skyrocketed.
No, it's not a 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 also silver.
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.
Some people are interpreting the Republican House's decision.
To keep Liz Cheney as in the third position of leadership in the Republican House as a sign that the Republican Party wants to be the establishment party and not the MAGA party.
Now, the vote on keeping Liz Cheney in her position was fairly close.
There was a clear majority to keep her, but there was a significant minority that would have booted her.
Out of the leadership.
And the question this all raises is, what's happening with the Republican Party?
A huge question. How to reconcile, for example, the establishment or traditional Republicans with the perhaps MAGA or Trump Republicans?
And that's a question I have explored a little on the podcast.
I'll be exploring a lot more in the days ahead.
But now I want to ask a slightly different question that jumps to my mind as I think about Liz Cheney.
I think about her father, Dick Cheney, whom I knew quite well.
His wife, Liz's mom, Lynn Cheney, whom I knew very well.
In fact, Liz Cheney and I were together on the campus battles against the left.
We were part of the kind of, along with Bill Bennett, a kind of trio that were fighting against political correctness in the academy.
And so I know the family, and the family has always been quite fond of me.
And of course, they came as part of this larger team with the Bushes.
First with George H.W. Bush, whom they were close to when he was president, and then George W. Bush, for whom Dick Cheney was, of course, vice president.
And the question I'm asking is, are we done with that whole mode of Republicanism?
In fact, are we done not only with Bushism, but even with Reaganism?
Are we on to kind of a new phase in which the Republican Party has been, you may almost say, Trumpified?
And I want to give the answer, no.
It's not quite like that.
We are done with Bush and Bushism, but we're not done with Reaganism.
And in fact, Reaganism is very continuous with what Trump has been up to.
So let's back up for a moment and think about Reagan and what are the three things that Reagan stood for.
Number one, He stood for America having a tough stance in foreign policy.
Now remember, it was the era of the Cold War and Reaganism was shaped by that.
But nevertheless, the broad insight of Reaganism was that the world is a very dangerous place.
There are a lot of bad guys in the world and no amount of UN resolutions or cocktail party conversations is going to prevent them from being bad.
So you need to have a big stick and be willing when the time requires to use it.
That's what Reagan believed.
I don't think Trump would dissent one bit from that assessment.
Number two, Reagan believed that the free market or capitalism, technological capitalism, not government control, is the way to produce economic abundance.
Trump not only agrees, is not only on board, but the whole example of Trump's life is continuous with that idea that we trust the market, we don't trust the government.
Trump was almost the capitalist par excellence, not only in his life, but also in his advocacy.
Now, third, Reagan believed that we need not only a free society, but a decent society.
Our society is anchored in founding principles and Christian values, and we should respect that.
We should respect the police.
We should respect law and order.
We should pay attention to civic life.
We should respect the dignity of human life.
Hey, this is all Trump.
Trump is completely on board with all of this.
So the differences between Trump and Reagan are quite minor.
Things like, Reagan, by and large, was against the idea of tariffs.
Reagan was a free trader.
Trump is also a free trader, but Trump's view is, listen, if the other guy puts tariffs on his products, maybe we should threaten to put tariffs on ours.
Why? So we can get him to take down his products.
So the threat of American tariffs is a kind of negotiating leverage, and Reagan would understand that very well.
In fact, Reagan's logic was, hey, if the Soviets build up their nuclear weapons, let's build up our nuclear weapons.
Why? So that they get the message that they're not going to win that kind of an arms race, and they begin to pull back, at which point we.
It's the same logic completely.
So Reaganism and Trumpism are pretty much on the same level.
Now, Bushism is a whole different matter.
And when I come back, I want to dive into how Bushism represented a sharp departure from Reaganism, both in personality and in policy.
And that's why we need to take this whole Bush legacy and toss it into the ocean.
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 title and forges your signature on a quitclaim 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're already a victim.
Then use code radio to receive 30 free days of protection.
That's code radio at hometitlelock.com.
HomeTitleLock.com The Republican Party does not need to jettison the Reagan legacy, but I do think it needs to reconsider the Bush legacy.
And this, of course, is not because of any personal grudge against the Bushes.
They're actually decent men.
George H.W. Bush was a very nice guy, and no one can really doubt the decency of W either.
Not only that, but the Bushes accomplished some impressive things.
George H.W. Bush, for example, people forget this, presided over the collapse of the Soviet Empire.
So we sometimes say Reagan won the Cold War without firing a shot, but the Berlin Wall fell in 1989.
That was the year Reagan went out of office.
And then the Soviet Union collapsed in 91, 92, if I recall correctly.
And of course, Bush was President.
Bush was the one who kind of oversaw all that.
And he did an excellent job.
W came in under very difficult conditions, a very close election, of course, with Gore.
And then 9-11, which he handled also with tremendous aplomb.
I think my complaint about the Bushes is that they misread the changes that were underway in the Democratic Party.
The Democratic Party was slowly being gangsterized, first by Clinton, and then later by Obama.
And the Bushes never really saw that coming.
So the Bushes continued in the kind of old gentlemanly tradition.
We've got two parties.
We basically have decent people on both sides.
We disagree about certain things, but we're really disagreeing about means, not about ends.
The Democrats are pretty much the Democrats of old, and if we deal with them on the basis of handshake, I gave you my word, the kind of accommodationist style, that that would work.
Of course, the problem is that that's not the reality of the situation.
I mean, I think that's partly the insight of Trump.
Trump realized kind of what Lincoln realized when Lincoln came to Washington.
He realized the Democratic Party in 1860 had become thoroughly gangsterized.
It was not the same party of the 1830s and 40s, and they had to be dealt with completely differently.
The other problem with the Bushes is that because of their almost singular focus on foreign policy, they became increasingly interventionist.
And this was particularly seen with W and with the Iraq War.
Remember Reagan, although Reagan fought the Cold War, Reagan was tough against Gorbachev in the first term, but soft in the second term.
Reagan became kind of accommodationist toward Gorbachev.
And this turned out to be the correct posture.
With Reagan, he was also very reluctant to use troops.
Contrast Reagan and Bush. The Soviet Union in 1979 invaded Afghanistan with 100,000 troops.
How many troops should Reagan deploy against them?
Zero. None.
Reagan supplied some CIA advisors.
He supplied some Stinger missiles to shoot down Soviet helicopters, but he did not commit U.S. troops.
Why? Because for Reagan, committing troops were the last resort.
I think this is really where Bush burned the Republican brand.
And the Republican brand was one of force, but prudent use of force.
By and large, Reagan supported something called the Reagan Doctrine, which is that people should fight for their own freedom.
In countries like Nicaragua, and Mozambique, and Angola, people want to fight for their freedom, they fight.
We will help.
But we're not going to commit American lives to that cause.
Reagan was very reluctant to do that.
Bottom line is that Trump and Reagan are similar in believing that America has a role to play in the world.
But the use of force must be prudent.
I think that as the Republican Party goes forward, preserving the dignity of the Reagan spirit, but combining it with Trump's kind of recognition that we're no longer fighting a Cold War abroad, but a domestic Cold War at home, That's the real psychological shift in the Republican Party.
And in that process, I'm not sure how the Bush legacy today remains relevant.
We're in a battle for truth, and it's a time to strengthen 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 topics like life and death, sex and 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 now a bestseller on Amazon.
Former White House aide Wallace Henley says, 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.
It's time for the mailbox, and I have an interesting question from Larry following up with a segment I did earlier on Follow the Science.
And Larry asked this question, if science is based on facts, Aren't policies that follow the science better than ones who don't?
Now, Larry, you're certainly right that this follow the science or listen to the science has become a total mantra.
I played earlier a clip from Greta Thunberg echoing this kind of orthodoxy, but here's Kamala Harris saying essentially the same thing.
Joe understands that the west coast of our country is burning, including my home state of California.
Joe sees what is happening on the Gulf states, which are being battered by storms.
Joe has seen and talked with the farmers in Iowa, whose entire crops have been destroyed because of floods.
We have seen a pattern with this administration, which is they don't believe in science.
I think the problem is that people who say follow the science in this way don't know what science is.
Greta Thunberg certainly doesn't.
I don't think Kamala Harris does either.
They're kind of assuming that science is sort of a thing.
And science somehow speaks with a kind of collective or unanimous voice on issues like coronavirus or climate change.
Well, let's start with coronavirus.
The truth of it is there are very good scientists all over the world, very good scientists in India, in Hong Kong, in Switzerland, in China, in the United States.
And all different countries have had different types of policies regarding the virus.
Some places like Hong Kong and Sweden never went into a full lockdown.
They've got very good scientists, and their very good scientists told them, don't lock it down.
There are ways of building herd immunity.
There are ways of dealing with the virus.
We will face the brunt of it, but so will everybody else, and we'll keep our economies intact, as they largely have.
Now, there are other countries that went into full lockdown.
The British government listened to the science by listening to a study from Imperial College London, a study that has now been questioned, disputed.
So again, the point I'm trying to make is that there's no uniform science that automatically dictates what you should do.
Public policymakers have got to listen to scientists.
More importantly, debates among scientists about what the science actually says.
Very often, even scientific claims are either ambiguous or in some cases they are, you may say, shaped by cultural assumptions.
This seems like a strange thing to say, but a little glance at history shows that it's completely true.
The scholar who has been on this for a long time and is associated with it The great Thomas Kuhn, his book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, and a separate book that he did on the Copernican Revolution, which is also about this exact topic.
So here's the point we're trying to make.
That when people look at science, they look at it through a cultural lens.
By the way, when the Jesuits arrived in China centuries ago, they showed the Chinese new maps of the world that they had made that gave a more accurate placement for all the different places and countries.
Now, interestingly, the Chinese right away recognize that these maps had information that they, the Chinese, didn't have.
So they look at the maps and they go, well, this is all very interesting.
It has a lot of stuff we don't know, but it can't be right.
Why not? Because they go, because China is not at the center of the world.
And so their argument was that if China, since they know, they knew, this was their starting out premise, if China must be at the center of the world, and if China isn't, the maps have to be wrong, no matter how cartographically impressive they look.
So the Jesuits were kind of flummoxed by this, but they went back and they redrew their maps, keeping them exactly the same, but just putting China at the center.
And the Chinese were like, ah, well, that's more like it.
Now the science is really speaking to us.
Point to make here is that science is shaped by underlying assumptions.
Now, Thomas Kuhn looks in and looks at the example of Galileo.
Now, we think today we get this romantic story of Galileo is against the Catholic Church and Galileo represented science and the Church represented superstition.
This is all bogus.
First of all, the Jesuit astronomers who were working with the Catholic Church were thought to be the best astronomers in the world.
They had instruments that Galileo didn't have.
They had knowledge that Galileo didn't have.
By and large, they were building off theories that Galileo didn't agree with that they were right on.
Many of Galileo's arguments for heliocentrism were wrong.
Galileo, for example, had an argument based on the tides.
But the argument was wrong.
We know now that the tides are caused by the gravitational force of the sun and the moon acting on the earth.
It has nothing to do with the earth being at the center or the sun being at the center.
Galileo rejected the idea of elliptical orbits, which Kepler demonstrated.
Galileo said, Well, we now know Kepler was right.
Galileo was wrong.
The point I'm trying to make is this.
There was no science that was speaking through Galileo.
Galileo was making controversial arguments that were not accepted at the time, and this is the crushing point that Kuhn makes.
The argument proving that Galileo was right, and he was right about, of course, the Sun being at the center of the solar system and not the Earth, But the evidence for that came in only much later.
It was not available at Galileo's time later, and of course now when we can have traveling satellites, we can actually leave the Earth and take a look at the Earth and see its place in the solar system.
But that is the benefit of hindsight.
At the time, it was not clear whether Galileo was right or whether the Jesuits were right.
So, the point we try to make here is not that science is relativistic, that's not Kuhn's point, but that science sometimes speaks in an unclear voice.
And even when science speaks more clearly, the policy implications aren't all that clear.
The science tells us that eating french fries is bad for you, but it doesn't tell you whether eating french fries should be outlawed.
The chance of being killed on the highway may be, let's say, one in a hundred thousand.
But does that tell you what the speed limit should be?
No, the science doesn't tell you.
You have to make an independent decision.
The bottom line of it is science is the necessary, though not the sufficient basis, of making public policy.
We should listen not to the science, but to the debates in science.
▲
Export Selection