Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Feb. 9, 2021 - Dinesh D'Souza

01:08:16

THE GUILTY PARTY Dinesh D’Souza Podcast Ep 22

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Who's the guilty party, Trump or the Democrats?
	I'll reveal the answer.
	Plus, if January 6th was a terrorist attack, an insurgency, how many people were murdered?
	As it turns out, none.
	Plus, Time Magazine makes a true confession about the 2020 election.
	This is the Dinesh D'Souza Podcast.
	I've talked a lot about Mike Lindell's great products at MyPillow, but I want to talk today about his throw blankets.
	When Mike developed his throw blankets, he wanted everything you could want in a throw blanket.
	That's why he used 100% Supima cotton and made them oversized for maximum comfort.
	They are the perfect blanket for curling up on the couch, lounging in your recliner, Or just an extra layer whenever you need it.
	My guarantees they'll be the most comfortable throw blankets you'll ever own.
	They're made from 100% Supima cotton for superior softness and comfort.
	There are two unique designs in a variety of colors to fit everyone's style and decor.
	Trellis, six color choices, a darker jewel tone palette.
	There's a chain knit, five color choices, a softer palette.
	Generously oversized for maximum comfort and warmth.
	They're so pretty and soft, we had to have one ourselves, so we ordered the trellis in the mustard color.
	Take a look at it right here.
	For a limited time, originally priced at $59.99, with promo code Dinesh, you get 30% off.
	So call 800-876-0227 and use promo code Dinesh.
	Mike has a multitude of products.
	They're all steeply discounted.
	For a limited time, 30% off these beautiful throws.
	Remember to call 800-876-0227 or just go to MyPillow.com.
	but as always 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.
	We need an interpretive key to understand the whole impeachment charade, the impeachment And the interpretive key is the concept of projection.
	Now, this is sort of a psychological concept.
	Many people attribute it to Sigmund Freud, but it was actually developed by Anna Freud, his daughter, The concept of projection basically is like a projector which throws an image onto a wall.
	The basic idea is that people who do something, and often something really bad, project it onto someone else, accusing others of the crimes that they themselves are guilty of.
	And you see this in spades in impeachment, but more broadly with the Democrats and Trump.
	Let's look at some specific examples.
	The Democrats accused Trump of inciting and fomenting violence.
	Did Trump do that?
	Cite the example.
	He didn't. They're not going to be able to cite any examples.
	But there are plenty of examples on their side.
	Of not only condoning violence, but calling for it, demanding it, protecting the violent ones, putting up bail money for them, saying that the violence will continue and sort of smiling and exulting in that fact.
	That's the Democrats for you.
	And they perpetrate this violence again and again.
	They've been perpetrating it on elected members of Congress.
	Steve Scalise.
	Rand Paul, who was beaten up by his left-wing neighbor, and then again accosted as he came out of the Trump inauguration.
	So, the left does that.
	You can't name a single example on the other side of a left-wing member of Congress who was somehow accosted or attacked, and then that attack was justified by the right.
	It just doesn't exist. Then we turn to, Trump has been interfering in the election process.
	Actually, no. But the Democrats have been.
	They've been interfering with the election process ever since 2016.
	I'll talk later today about how Time Magazine talks about an elaborate conspiracy, Time Magazine's own word, on the left, to interfere in the election process, to rig, or perhaps, to use Time's word, fortify the election.
	So they do it, but they accuse Trump of it.
	They accuse Trump of being a clear and present danger to civil liberties.
	What has Trump done to curb civil liberties?
	What has Trump done to curb their civil liberties?
	Has he shut down CNN? Has he shut down digital media?
	No. Digital media has shut down Trump.
	In other words, the attack on civil liberties comes from the left.
	It doesn't just apply to Trump.
	It applies to all of us.
	All our civil liberties are in danger because of the left.
	And I don't just mean our freedom of speech.
	I also mean our freedom of worship, our freedom of assembly.
	coronavirus has been a massive pretext, lockdowns to infringe on civil liberties, and all of that is coming from the Democrats and from the left.
	Trump threatens the independence of the judiciary.
	Has Trump threatened to pack the court? No. Trump is merely appointed, in line with his constitutional responsibilities, nominees to the court. The Senate had to confirm them. The Democrats threaten to pack the court. They're accusing Trump of doing exactly what they do. And finally, Trump has used his office to benefit himself.
	This has been going on. They've been making this case going back four years now.
	And yet, I read an article that just came out.
	This is an article in the Western Journal that takes a look at Trump's finances.
	It turns out that he was worth $4.5 billion in 2016.
	He is currently worth...
	2.5 billion. Trump has lost $2 billion.
	So the idea that he has somehow leveraged his office to make money is just on the face of it factually false.
	By contrast, look at the way that the left has used public office to cash in.
	Look at Biden. Biden has become a centi-millionaire, a guy with a net worth exceeding $100 million on a government salary.
	It's just physically impossible.
	And it's not from speaking fees or book royalties either.
	He's been raking it in from contracts through his family with the family members as bag men from foreign governments.
	I've really been chuckling lately because Hunter Biden has a new book coming out.
	And there's a very emotional scene of Joe Biden talking about this.
	I'm actually going to quote him now.
	And he literally gets choked up.
	He goes, my boy's back.
	I mean, you know what I mean?
	Anyway, I'm sorry to get so personal.
	So this is Biden.
	His boy's back. It's a redemption story.
	I mean, I'm about as moved as I was when Michael Corleone returned from Italy and was reunited with Don Corleone.
	And Don Corleone's like, oh, my boy's back.
	Hey, you got away with murder.
	This is great.
	Now you can stay around and kill all our enemies.
	Now, I obviously don't mean the analogy of getting away with murder literally, but figuratively, the Bidens have gotten away with murder.
	And what I mean is they have run an international financial racket.
	They've gotten away with it, and now they're in a position to do it again on an even bigger scale.
	I think that's actually why Joe Biden was kind of choking up.
	He was crying for joy because I think he now has the opportunity to go from being a centi-millionaire to being a billionaire.
	Bottom line, This is all about projection.
	The bad guys are projecting onto the good guys what the bad guys themselves do.
	It kind of reminds me a little bit of the Bible and the Pharisees.
	Think about it. Who were the real instigators?
	The Pharisees. They were instigating the crowd.
	They were spreading hate. They were trying to stoke up the people.
	What did they accuse Jesus of?
	Instigation, incitement, stoking the crowd.
	Of course, Jesus didn't do it.
	They did it. But they projected their hate and malevolence and conspiratorial violence onto Jesus.
	And people say, well, Dinesh, are you comparing Jesus to Trump?
	No, I'm not saying that Trump is Jesus, but I am saying that the Democrats are worse than the Pharisees.
	The analogy does work to that degree.
	Bottom line, the whole thing is a fake.
	If the right people were going to be rounded up and apprehended, it wouldn't be Trump.
	It would be the Democrats.
	Do you think there's a coincidence between Biden signing all those executive orders in his first couple of weeks and the price of silver skyrocketing?
	No. 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 too.
	If you want to purchase physical gold or silver, drop shipped straight to your door, or help converting an IRA or eligible 401 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.
	Is the process of impeaching and then attempting to convict Trump a constitutional process?
	Is it authorized by the U.S. Constitution?
	Now, we're seeing a lot of constitutional back and forth on this, and of course this will be the subject of the Senate debate in the early phase of this trial.
	It was the philosopher David Hume who said a long time ago, a couple hundred years ago, that reason is the slave of the passions.
	And what Hume meant by this is that we often don't reason our way through something and then feel a certain way about it.
	It's the opposite. Our passions kick in first.
	We hate Trump. We want to get him.
	And then we read the Constitution in such a way that our passions are driving our reason.
	Our passion is the charioteer and the reason is the horse.
	So we come up with a conclusion that we think is reasonable.
	I'm just reading the Constitution right here, Dinesh.
	But in reality, we're not doing that.
	We're imposing our preferred outcome at the beginning, and then you may almost say reasoning our way backward in order to achieve that.
	And this is the problem with a lot of these constitutional kind of scrutinies, is they have a hidden motive.
	And this applies to me, too.
	I'm going to do my own sort of constitutional reading in a minute.
	But the truth of it is, I think the process is bogus.
	I feel that Trump did nothing wrong.
	There was no incitement.
	This whole thing is a sham.
	And I will confess that my reading is going to be somewhat, is bound to be, Hume would say, influenced by those passions.
	But nevertheless, let us try in the best way that I can to give four reasons why this is an unconstitutional arrangement.
	This is actually a kind of desecration of the Constitution.
	It's not authorized by the Constitution.
	Let's look at those reasons. First, the Constitution speaks, this is Article 2, Section 4, about an impeachment process and conviction process for the President.
	That's it. The President.
	And that phrase is used repeatedly in this section.
	I'm going to quote, So it applies to the President.
	It doesn't apply to the former President.
	It applies to the President in office.
	And the President in office happens to be Joe Biden.
	Donald Trump is not the president.
	He is at this point a private citizen.
	There seems to be no authorization here for convicting a former president.
	You would have to alter the constitutional text to make room for that.
	Number two, impeachment exists for removal.
	Again, look at the constitutional text, which makes it really clear that impeachment is not a criminal trial.
	It is rather a trial of a public official, the president, for the purpose of kicking him out, If he satisfies these stern or serious criteria.
	I think it was Ben Franklin who implied at one point that impeachment was a kind of preferred alternative to assassination.
	This is unlike in the era of Shakespeare's Kings, where the bad king would have to be overthrown or assassinated.
	Here, they're just booted out of office.
	So removal from office is the penalty.
	Now, the Constitution also adds, and the person removed can be barred from running for office in the future.
	But this second clause is contingent upon the first.
	In other words, once you've removed the president, you can then say...
	He can't run again. It's completely different to say, I'm gonna impeach and convict a private citizen and then bar the private citizen from running for office again.
	No, that's not what the Constitution says.
	Next, There's absolutely no precedent for this.
	Now, the constitutional scholars on the left are ransacking British history.
	American law is based on British law, at least Americans consulted British law in developing their understanding of these issues like impeachment.
	And the most popular example that's been trotted out is 1869, the impeachment of a cabinet secretary.
	But, of course, the interesting thing is the cabinet secretary was acquitted.
	A number of senators who were part of that impeachment voted to acquit him because they said that they had concerns about trying someone who was not in office, a former official.
	So they believe that the Constitution doesn't authorize that.
	And then the most recent and obvious example, which would apply here, we're not talking about a cabinet secretary, we're talking about a president, is Nixon.
	Nixon was, in fact...
	The impeachment process was underway, but Nixon resigned before it was carried out.
	And then what happened? Let's think about it.
	Because there was a lot of vengeful anger against Nixon after Watergate.
	The House could have said, hey, he's a former president, let's impeach him anyway.
	And the Senate could have said, let's convict him anyway.
	But they didn't. They dropped the whole matter.
	The House dropped it and the Senate dropped it.
	And later Ford pardoned Nixon, but he didn't pardon him for the impeachment.
	He pardoned him for any criminal penalties.
	That's a whole separate issue altogether.
	Alan Dorshowitz says, it was clear that the Senate had lost jurisdiction at the point where Nixon resigned.
	Now, finally...
	This notion that you can impeach a former president was specifically rejected by the framers.
	This is exactly where precedent cuts the other way, because leftist scholars say, wait a minute, Dinesh, Warren Hastings, the British official, the governor general in India and the Bengal, was charged.
	He was impeached.
	Yes, he was acquitted, but at least they tried to impeach him, and they did it two years after his alleged offenses.
	But of course, that's the British example.
	It's also the case that there were some early state constitutions in America that allowed for the impeachment and conviction of former officials.
	But you know what? That all was known by the founders.
	When they got together in Philadelphia, they could have said, let's adopt the British example.
	Let's adopt the example of these state constitutions.
	But in fact, the founders decided not to.
	They did not include those provisions in the Constitution.
	And what that means is that they considered them and rejected them.
	So, where does this leave us?
	It leaves us with the fact that this is an act driven by passion.
	Kind of reminds me, the scholar Jonathan Turley has a funny example that he gives.
	In 897, he says, in the so-called Cadaver Synod, Pope Stephen VI literally pulled Pope Formosus out of his tomb, convicted him, chopped off three of his fingers, and threw him into the Tiber River.
	This is basically, I think Hume would have chuckled over this one, reason is the slave of the passions.
	This impeachment process is a vindictive, vendetta-driven, let's try to drive a stake in Donald Trump's heart.
	They hate the man so much.
	Okay, I understand it.
	But to imply that this has some dignified moral, legal, or constitutional sanction, give me a break.
	Hey, if you know the D'Souzas, you know we're very selective with our partnerships and Eggert Watches is a company we are 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 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 the short films that they've created.
	What is Freedom? is the first short film you'll see Elon put his company on the line to take a stance on current issues like censorship facing America.
	Especially today, it's 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 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 really good, incredible watches.
	Debbie and I are both wearing one today.
	Check mine out. I mean, look at it.
	This is a watch. The craftsmanship, the uniqueness is something to marvel at.
	They feel a lot more expensive than they are.
	Elon gave us a discount, 15% off, and I can share that with you if you use the promo code Dinesh at checkout.
	So now you have two reasons to visit Eggert Watches.
	Eggertwatches.com.
	E-H-G-A-R-D-W-A-T-C-H-E-S.com.
	Come for the watches. Stay for the conservatives.
	Ever since January 6th, it has seemed that in the media, people can talk about nothing else.
	There's been a kind of frenzy of media coverage, and there's also been a kind of elevated, outraged rhetoric about This was an insurrection.
	This was a terrorist attempt.
	This was a coup on the nation's government, an attack on our democracy.
	The left is trying to make January 6th into its own 9-11.
	And it's not just my analogy.
	I've seen it in multiple places.
	The historian, Michael Beschloss, recently compared January 6th to 9-11.
	And his conclusion is January 6th was worse.
	Because in 9-11 they didn't take over the Capitol, but in January 6th they did.
	In other words, this domestic insurgency is more dangerous than the terrorist attack that killed 3,000 people on September 11, 2001.
	Now, for any sane person to make these analogies, there would have to be some sort of comparison in terms of the actual harm that was created.
	So where are the 3,000 dead on January 6th?
	They don't exist. Yes, Dinesh, but five people died.
	We're going to get to the five people and look at who they were and why they died and how many people were murdered by the terrorists or the insurgents.
	The actual number turns out to be zero.
	Most of the fears that were described by members of Congress turn out to be imaginary.
	We saw, of course, the great scene of AOC putting on her best kind of taking all the cues from acting class.
	Oh, I was hiding behind the desk.
	I was quiet as a mouse.
	You know, I could see the insurgents on the other side of the door.
	Ted Cruz is trying to murder me.
	And it turns out that the only guy in the building who comes in is a Capitol Hill police officer there to protect her.
	And you'd think that she'd back off, but she's such a chronic, habitual liar that she can't do it.
	She can't back off. She was recently asked, why did you accuse Ted Cruz of trying to kill you?
	She goes, well, I didn't say that.
	I didn't say that. Well, she did say it.
	It's right there in her own tweet in black and white.
	And she conjures up all these fantasies.
	Oh, my life was flashing before me.
	I was facing death.
	I can just kind of continue this reverie in my own way.
	Oh, you know, I put in all that work studying the economist Milton Keynes, and all of that is going to be for nothing.
	And then all the reading I did in high school of the great author F. Scott Hemingway.
	And then I studied the great works of Booker T. Du Bois, and my economic studies of Adam Marks.
	And then the time I had to think about the presidency of John F. Nixon.
	And then my admiration for Frederick Luther King.
	I mean, really?
	This is all in the land of the imagination.
	I expect AOC to go something like, And then all the time I spent reading the autobiography of Malcolm X. She means Malcolm X. We're dealing with a dunce.
	And we'd feel sorry for her if she had real fears.
	But she now knows that those fears were imaginary.
	You'd think she'd go, phew, what a relief.
	You know what? I was scared, but it turns out it was all for nothing.
	I wasn't in any real danger.
	But see, the whole point of January 6th is to create an artificial sense of danger.
	Now here's AOC's bosom buddy, Rashida Tlaib, describing her experience.
	Listen. Each one paralyzed me each time.
	So what happened on January 6th, all I could do was thank Allah that I wasn't here.
	I felt overwhelming relief, and I feel bad for Alexandria, so many of my colleagues that were here.
	But as I saw it, I thought to myself, thank God I am not there.
	Oh my gosh!
	She's crying over the fact that she wasn't there.
	Oh, I wasn't there.
	It was so scary.
	Of course, it'd be scary if I was there, but since I wasn't there, I'm really scared.
	Oh! And then, of course, AOC comes to comfort her.
	Yes, I gotta comfort you. You weren't there.
	I wasn't either, but both of us were terrified.
	Oh! I mean, at any other age, this would be material for comedy.
	This should actually be on Saturday Night Live, although they don't dare.
	They're such cowards over there.
	They can't even be funny because they don't know what funny is anymore.
	They just sit there whimpering, oh, let's make another joke about Trump.
	Anyway, the point here is the reason that all this fear has to be manufactured is because the real threat wasn't there.
	The real threat wasn't there.
	Turns out that the five people who died were, and I'm not kidding, all Trumpsters.
	Every single one of them.
	So this is a weird kind of terrorist attack in which the only people killed are the terrorists.
	The only people murdered is...
	were... no one.
	No one was actually murdered on January 6th.
	The bottom line of it is, this is all trumped up.
	It's fake outrage over an event that is in no way comparable to 9-11.
	It's in no way comparable to even a much more minor incident that has real casualties, real murder victims, in which there was an intent to kill and actual killing took place.
	That was not the case here.
	So we're going to come right back and talk a little more about this after this word from Home Title Lock.
	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 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 We're having this great Senate trial which centers on the events of January 6, so it's worth zooming in on that day and asking the question, who died on January 6 at the Capitol and why?
	It turns out that five people died.
	Now, Three of them were Trumpsters who apparently died due to various medical conditions.
	I don't know if they had adrenaline or palpitations or some pre-existing medical condition.
	In any event, three of the deaths are attributed to that.
	The fourth person who died was Ashley Babbitt.
	Ashley Babbitt, a veteran from California, Who believed the election was stolen.
	She pushed her way into the Capitol when a window was broken.
	She came through. She was the first person to come through.
	And she was shot by a Capitol Hill police officer.
	The police officer has not been charged.
	The shooting, I guess, was held to be justified.
	It was nevertheless very tragic.
	And here is Ashley Babbitt's husband talking about how he found out that his wife was dead.
	Listen. Erin Babbitt says his wife, 35-year-old Ashley Babbitt, is the woman shot inside the Capitol just after 2.45 Wednesday when the building was breached.
	He shared several photos of his wife, including one of her when a demonstration in support of President Trump was just getting underway.
	Hours later, he says he watched coverage unfold on the news and subsequently saw what he says was his wife shot and dying on the screen.
	She didn't have any weapons on her.
	I don't know why she had to die in the people's house.
	That's our house. It's everybody's house.
	It doesn't matter if you're a Democrat or Republican.
	I don't know why she had to die inside the house.
	I saw the pictures.
	I had to see the pictures of my wife dying on the news.
	This is terribly sad.
	I don't know if it was a justified shooting.
	I don't think so.
	But I do concede that the police are there to protect the members of Congress, and this was an invasion of that space, for sure.
	But it's interesting the media has shown almost no sympathy toward Ashley Babbitt.
	Now, all the sympathy is focused on one man, and that is Officer Sicknick.
	We recently saw a very moving state commemoration of his death and honoring of Officer Sicknick, and I think that was appropriate.
	Turns out that Officer Sicknick was a Trumpster, a Trump supporter.
	So that's the fifth death, and that's why I say all five people who died on January 6 were Trump supporters.
	Officer Sicknick was one, too.
	From January 6th right up until now, there has been a torrent of media reporting that the Trumpsters, the MAGA people, murdered Officer Sicknick.
	Here's National Review. Sicknick was murdered.
	Here's the Washington Examiner writer tweeting out,"...when he told followers to stand up, they listened and murdered a cop while storming the Capitol." Here's Poppy Harlow on CNN. We turn now to a tribute happening soon for fallen Capitol Hill officer Brian Sicknick, who died and was killed. He was killed when one of the rioters hit him with a fire extinguisher.
	Anderson Cooper, a Capitol police officer, was beaten reportedly with a fire extinguisher.
	Ana Cabrera, officer Brian Sicknick, died after being hit in the head with a fire extinguisher during the hours-long attack.
	As it turns out, all these statements are completely false.
	Turns out, and this is coming now from FBI reports and from Capitol Hill police reports, and I'm now reading, investigators are struggling to build a federal murder case regarding fallen U.S. Capitol Police officer Brian Sicknick, quote, vexed by a lack of evidence that could prove someone caused his death.
	Turns out prosecutors in Washington opened up a murder investigation, but this is what I'm now quoting from CNN itself.
	Medical examiners did not find signs that the officer sustained any blunt force trauma.
	So investigators believe that early reports that he was fatally struck by a fire extinguisher are not true.
	Authorities have reviewed video and photographs that show Sicknick engaging with rioters amidst the siege, but have yet to identify a moment in which he suffered his fatal injuries.
	And Brian Sicknick's family, which knows all this, has basically said, we want nothing to do with these false reports that this man was murdered or hit with a fire extinguisher.
	Now, here's my point.
	None of the people who perpetrated these brazen lies have admitted them.
	Let's take National Review. National Review needs to publicly apologize for falsely accusing Trumpsters of murdering this police officer.
	It's understandable that they went based on media reports at the time, but where's the retraction?
	Where are the retractions from CNN? Where's Anderson Cooper's apology?
	Where's Anna Cabrera's apology?
	In reality, we live at a time when lies get exposed, but the initial reports are never corrected.
	These people just march on to the next lie, never even bothering to verify and say, you know what?
	I made a mistake. I was wrong.
	I actually falsely accused people who didn't do it.
	So this kind of simple, you may call it, you know, manly dignity, a willingness to say what you did, These people are too cowardly to do that.
	But I'm calling upon them, and it'll be very interesting to see how many of them actually do apologize.
	Bottom line, no one was murdered on January 6th.
	And it was a tragic event.
	Laws were broken.
	People do need to be held accountable.
	I deny none of that.
	But this effort to inflate the event into something other than it was, that's reprehensible.
	That's despicable. Mike Lindell of MyPillow is a brave man.
	This guy has been under so much attack.
	And it didn't just start now.
	It's been going on for a while.
	Listen. So I come back to Minnesota and I put out a press release to him going, hey, I had a meeting with Donald Trump.
	I sent this out and...
	Not one of them responded except for calling me a racist, calling me all these things.
	I go, what? They didn't even know what we talked about or if I was going to back him and get behind him.
	Well, once I got that, I go, wow.
	This is just pure evil.
	Now, what happened with the Better Business Bureau?
	So the Better Business Bureau in Minnesota, they lower my rating for my pill from an A-plus to an F, and they do a national press release.
	I mean, the media just tried to destroy me.
	I mean, you can just see what a great guy, what a genuine guy Mike Lindell is.
	And apart from Trump, I've never seen a guy who has been under so much attack as Mike, founder and CEO of MyPillow.
	The left has been going after his business, retailers have been cancelling him, and now the latest, he's been banned across social media, not just on Twitter, but there are platforms that won't even allow him to buy ads searching his own name.
	And why?
	Because Mike made an explosive documentary film they don't want you to watch.
	What are we living in the Soviet Union?
	The Soviet Empire collapsed in 1992.
	Are we trying to bring it back to the United States?
	This is really not America as we know it.
	Well, you know what? Millions of people have seen Mike's movie.
	You can see it if you want at michaeljlindell.com.
	And I think it's important we all support Mike in any way we can.
	We should defeat this effort to destroy him and his business.
	Here you can see me and Debbie in our MyPillow robes.
	I can't think of a better gift for Valentine's Day.
	It beats the chocolate-covered strawberries every time.
	And Mike has over 100 items from sheets to pillows to blankets to towels, dog beds, and yes, robes.
	And they're all available at deep discounts if you use the promo code Dinesh.
	So call 800-876-0227, use promo code Dinesh, or just go to MyPillow.com, but make sure to use the promo code.
	We have seen in America a kind of upsurge of political violence.
	Now, of course, we've gotten acres and acres of media coverage focusing on the events of January 6th.
	It's been described in extreme language, a terrorist attack, an insurgency, an attempt to launch a coup.
	But on the other hand, those of us who follow politics can't avoid the fact that we've been seeing gruesome images of violence for many, many months.
	Violence coming from the left, violence in many cities, from Seattle to Portland to Washington, D.C., violence that involves burning churches, torching buildings, occupying them, clashes with police, the beating up of police officers, murders in some cases.
	I have with me today...
	Betsy Smith, a career, lifetime police officer, retired police sergeant, spokesperson for the National Police Association, someone who joined the police department, I believe, at the age of 17 in Illinois.
	And has been following all of this, I think with a deepening sense of concern and dismay.
	Welcome Betsy Smith to the podcast.
	Thanks for joining me.
	I really appreciate it.
	You have a point to make about a real double standard in the media's coverage of political violence.
	What do you say about that?
	Absolutely. It's very frustrating.
	You know, we were all horrified by the violence that we saw on January 6th at the Capitol, although that protest was mostly peaceful by media standards.
	And now we have seen since then just a constant discussion of this.
	And now we've had a police officer who died as a result, apparently, of those riots, was honored at the Capitol.
	And we hear lots of talk about that.
	But for the nine or ten months prior to January 6th, All of the riots, the violent riots that we have seen around the country, police officers were not honored.
	They were vilified, even though they were...
	Hundreds of police officers have been badly injured.
	Some of those injuries were career-ending.
	We had police officers murdered in the name of Black Lives Matter and Antifa in these last 10 months or so.
	But all anyone wants to talk about is what happened to one police department during one...
	Six to seven hour riot.
	And it's very frustrating to the rest of the 900,000 police officers in this country who are trying their best to do their jobs.
	Now why do you think the media has this deep double standard?
	Would it be because the media is sympathetic to the political aspirations of Antifa and Black Lives Matter and hostile to the sort of MAGA movement of January 6th and therefore they treat one group like they are sort of incorrigible villains and the other group as if they are Sort of engaging in an understandable outbreak for racial justice.
	I think it was Representative Cori Bush who said, a riot is the language of the unheard, which is a standard trope on the left, as if people who are unheard are going to do this kind of thing, but somehow a riot does not become the language of the unheard when it comes to January 6th.
	So what's the motive of the media in this disparate or uneven coverage?
	Well, you know, and again, Representative Cori Bush just touted, you know, she just talked about a riot, a violent riot occurred, most people don't know this, in St.
	Louis this past weekend at the jail, and there was absolutely no demands, no reason, but Cori Bush said that was a terrific idea.
	The media, really since Ferguson, since 2014, has touted Black Lives Matter and their partner BLM as this sort of social justice, anti-law enforcement thing that we just, law enforcement's the enemy.
	And now all of a sudden in post January 6th, no, one police department is the department that is to be honored, the Capitol Police.
	But everyone else all weekend long, all week long, we're just supposed to say, oh, well, they're evil, but in the Capitol, they're not.
	And again, it's very frustrating.
	You know, the night of Joe Biden's inauguration, we had violent riots in Seattle and in Portland.
	Nobody talked about that.
	And so America has to decide.
	Our politicians on both sides have to decide.
	What really is Antifa?
	Is it a violent terror group like we believe it is?
	Or is it this loosely affiliated sort of social justice group and only MAGA affiliated people are evil when they are frustrated with government?
	We need to decide. Let me ask you a question that I haven't really seen raised.
	Is it possible that some of these MAGA activists who were in Washington, D.C. had been watching the media rationalize and excuse and even praise the other riots where people walked into buildings, they occupy offices, they challenge the people, and nothing happens to them.
	And these guys go, well, you know what?
	If we can do the same thing in the Capitol, we can go confront our representatives and demand that they recount the vote or whatever.
	But nothing's going to happen to us.
	So in a sense, could it be that there was partly a deep political naivete that caused these people to think that they would be treated the same way as the people on the left, only to discover that no, the FBI is going to come down on them with a ton of bricks and basically say, you guys are enemies of the republic, even though they haven't been taking that same approach to the domestic terrorists on the other side.
	Well, yes, and we absolutely now know that this is unprecedented, the media response to January 6th.
	We have seen every protester that has been arrested, identified, they've been outed in USA Today, they can't fly on airplanes.
	None of that has happened in the violent riots when we saw Antifa burn down the third precinct in Minneapolis, when we saw all the riots in New York and Seattle and Portland and Austin and Chicago.
	None of those people have been outed.
	And we know because the chief of the Capitol Police, the former chief, testified that they knew that there were both right-leaning and yes, there were Antifa who were planning to participate in that Capitol protest.
	So we know Antifa was involved.
	And yes, I believe that Antifa and affiliated groups have been given such a pass by the media and, frankly, by law enforcement that they thought, well, nothing will happen to us.
	We're free and clear and we'll be able to move along and continue to participate in violent riots.
	Yeah. Let me ask you to comment on a statement that I saw from FBI Director Christopher Wray.
	Listen. When it came to extremism, then Attorney General Bill Barr, the country's top law enforcement official, and his boss, the president, hardly ever addressed the threat from the far right.
	I've talked to every police chief in every city where there's been major violence, and they all have identified Antifa as the ramrod for the violence.
	The president's Antifa focus was at odds with what the FBI and Homeland Security officials were seeing.
	The FBI director, Christopher Wray, who was often a target of Trump's, risked his job making clear that he saw white supremacists making up the bulk of the domestic threat.
	Within the domestic terrorism bucket category as a whole, Racially motivated violent extremism is, I think, the biggest bucket within that larger group.
	And within the racially motivated violent extremist bucket, people ascribing to some kind of white supremacist type ideology is certainly the biggest chunk of that.
	You know, Sergeant Smith, I don't know whether to believe him or my lying eyes because you get the impression that the vast amount of violent activity is coming from these white supremacists and not from the left-wing Antifa types.
	How do you react to what strikes me as a manifestly bizarre and even distorted statement?
	Well, it really is.
	And he keeps using that term, racially.
	And yet, he has not acknowledged that Black Lives Matter and Antifa are also these racially motivated groups.
	He gives a pass to what we would call these social justice racially motivated groups.
	And yet he wants to talk about white supremacy.
	Unfortunately, the FBI, the leadership, has been terribly politicized over these last eight to ten years.
	This started in the Obama administration and, frankly, probably before.
	And, you know, one of my frustrations with President Trump is that he should have gotten rid of Christopher Wray, and he didn't, and now he's going to stay in place.
	And unfortunately, the FBI has been politically compromised, and that will probably continue.
	I don't believe, and no police officer I know around this country believes that there are these bands of white supremacists Running around attacking our citizenry.
	That's just not true.
	And his statement is so disingenuous.
	Sergeant Betsy Smith, thank you very much for joining the podcast.
	Thank you. Today we're in a battle for truth.
	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 topics like 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 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, get exclusive access to the first chapter for free.
	Go to reflectionsdinesh.com now.
	That's reflectionsdinesh.com.
	For weeks now, digital media has been banning, in some cases permanently banning, people who talk about voter fraud, about a rigged election, about a conspiracy to fix the election result.
	Now, in the middle of all this, kind of amazingly, along comes Time Magazine with a remarkable article In which Time basically confirms that at least some, if not many, of these critics,
	these people who have now been kicked off for saying what social media calls misinformation, conspiracy theories, well Time Magazine is actually confessing to an actual conspiracy.
	Their word, not mine.
	Here's the article.
	The Secret History of the Shadow Campaign that saved the 2020 election.
	And this article begins by saying, it's a very long article.
	I mean, it's so long, it goes on and on and on.
	I mean, if you print the article out and use it for toilet paper, you could go for two months.
	But it's really long.
	I want to focus on the front part of the article, which basically spills the beans on all the key things we're interested in.
	It says that Trump has been complaining about an orchestrated effort to designate a winner of the election, prevent election challenges, and essentially settle the matter right away.
	And then I quote Time Magazine, in a way, Trump was right.
	Trump was right. His fears, in other words, came true.
	Now I'm quoting from Time.
	There was a conspiracy unfolding behind the scenes.
	Time goes on to talk about an informal alliance between left-wing activists and business titans.
	Turns out, a lot of billionaires were in on it, and they speak specifically about the Chamber of Commerce.
	Time says that the forces of labor came together with the forces of capital to oppose Trump and defeat Trump.
	I quote them again. They don't mean voter suppression lawsuits.
	They just mean lawsuits trying to authenticate the count, compare signatures, things like that.
	Recruited armies of poll workers and got millions of people to vote by mail for the first time.
	They successfully pressured social media companies to take a harder line against disinformation.
	Now you have to decode this. A harder line against disinformation means suppress the Hunter Biden story.
	Suppress the story of the Biden family making tens of millions of dollars in the Ukraine, in China, in South America, all selling Joe Biden's public offices.
	Disinformation. Let's suppress it.
	Then they say, after Election Day, they monitored every pressure point to ensure that Trump couldn't overturn the result.
	Now, Trump, of course, wasn't trying to overturn the result.
	He was trying to show that the result was different.
	But, nevertheless, this group, this conspiracy, in Time Magazine's own words, is there to prevent Trump from succeeding at that.
	This is the inside story of the conspiracy to save the 2020 election.
	Now, let's back up here for a minute.
	Not only is this kind of confirming the worst fears of people who think that something terrible took place, an organized movement to pre-ordain, you may say, a winner, so is Time Magazine confessing to fixing the election?
	In other words, subverting democracy itself.
	Well, they use an interesting phrase.
	They say, we're not fixing the election.
	We're not rigging the election.
	What these people did was, quote, fortify it.
	I'm going to read the whole passage.
	That's why the participants want the secret history of the 2020 election told.
	Even though it sounds like a paranoid fever dream, a well-funded cabal of powerful people ranging across industries and ideologies, working together behind the scenes to influence perceptions, change rules and laws, steer media coverage and control the flow of information.
	And now I quote...
	They were not rigging the election, they were fortifying it.
	What the heck?
	What does this mean? How do you fortify an election?
	By changing laws, by changing the way in which people vote, by preventing challenges.
	You're talking about an organized movement Driven from the left, but apparently with some business people in cahoots, the tech moguls in cahoots with all this, to prevent free and open debate, to prevent challenges that are merely asking that votes be verified.
	And all of this is treated like you can almost ferret out the underlying assumption.
	Trump is a threat to democracy.
	And even though Trump is participating in democracy by running for office, in the name of democracy, we've got to stop Trump by any way we can.
	And so if we have to organize a conspiracy to, quote, fortify the election and make sure that Trump doesn't win, that's justified because, you know, it's Trump.
	So I think what you see here, these are people, by the way, who are not confessing.
	They're bragging.
	They're gloating. They're rubbing it in our face.
	They're saying, look what we did.
	Look what geniuses we are.
	We pulled it off.
	Now if we even talk about it, we'll shut you up.
	Well, we do get the message.
	And we're going to keep that in mind the next time an election comes around.
	If you're thinking of replacing your carpets due to pet stains and odors, you must try Genesis 950.
	The reviews are amazing.
	This is one product that actually works.
	With water, it breaks down the bonds of stains and odors so they are gone for good.
	Its antibacterial component removes pet odors from carpet and padding.
	It can be used in a carpet cleaning machine, and it's green so it's safe for your family and pets.
	Genesis 950 is made in America.
	If you're tired of pet cleaners that don't work, it's time to buy Genesis 950.
	One gallon of industrial strength Genesis 950 makes up to seven gallons of cleaner.
	But Genesis 950 is also great for bathrooms, floors, upholstery, and grease stains.
	Debbie uses it to clean the entire kitchen.
	Her phrase, best cleaner ever.
	Consider Genesis 950 before purchasing new carpets.
	Genesis 950 is great customer service.
	Order one-gallon direct at Genesis950.com to receive a free spray bottle, free shipping, and a $10 coupon code using the code Dinesh.
	That's Genesis950.com.
	The coupon is available only for a one-gallon purchase.
	Genesis 950, it's much cheaper than replacing your carpets.
	I often speak on this podcast and in my speeches about the way in which the left dominates popular culture.
	And we might think about, what do we do about this?
	How do we fight back?
	How do we create culture of our own?
	Now, interestingly, the sociologist James Davidson Hunter at the University of Virginia has some thoughts about this.
	He wrote several years ago a very interesting book called To Change the World.
	Now, the book was not addressed to conservatives.
	It was actually addressed to Christians.
	And Hunter began by making some startling points.
	He said that Christians, although a substantial portion of American society, 25% if you count only evangelical Christians, a much larger percentage if you count others as well, he goes, wow, evangelical Christians are 25%, but they have less cultural influence in America than, for example, Jews, who are 3%.
	Or even gays, who are 3%, thereabouts.
	And Hunter's point is, how is it that these small groups, like Jews, like gays, are able to have such a disproportionate influence on culture?
	Hunter says that Christians often assume, wrongly, that culture is shaped, quote, from the bottom up.
	That by organizing Christian meetings and potlucks or even revivals, and some Christians talk about a third great awakening, that that somehow automatically transforms culture.
	And Hunter basically says, no.
	When you look at the way culture is transformed, it's transformed not from the bottom up, but from the top down.
	Culture is transformed by elites.
	And by elites here, he means people who, quote, form culture.
	Culture makers, you may almost call them.
	And this would be people like writers, poets.
	Musicians. Architects.
	These are members of sometimes professional elites and initially, says Hunter, their work is aimed at other elites.
	They don't try to convince the general public.
	They try to convince the architectural community or they try to convince the community of musicians or the community of writers.
	Eventually that spills out into the media.
	It's picked up then by the movie industry and Hollywood and scripts get made.
	So what happens is the ordinary American doesn't create this stuff.
	They are fed it. They are fed this stuff from the top down.
	And then ultimately they receive it and their lives are transformed by it.
	They begin to act differently, talk differently, even feel differently in response to elite culture that has been, you may almost say, pumped down into their minds and into their hearts.
	Now, without fully trying to comment or analyze or resolve what Hunter is saying, I do think that we need a lot of culture making on our side.
	I've been trying in my own way to do this in the movie business, not just documentaries, but feature films.
	My latest documentary, Trump Card, which you can watch at home, or Infidel, a feature film now available for streaming and on demand.
	And I recently spotted on social media the comedian Ryan Long, a really funny guy, and here he is disguised or dressed up as a priest, creating a new religion, what he calls the Church of Woke.
	Listen. It is the dawning of an age where we need to repent your bigotry!
	Repent your phobias!
	Cast down ableism and cast down sexism!
	No, the Church of Woke is just like any other church except our God is intersectionality and our devil is intolerance.
	Thou shall not listen to the fiery bigotry contained within podcasting!
	Just like some of the other churches, we believe that blasphemous ideas that cause dissent to our cause should be removed.
	Remove problematic language from your vocabulary!
	We're actually doing a book burning later.
	I mean, we have Harry Potter, Jordan Peterson's 12 Rules for Life, which is basically our Salvador Rusty's The Satanic Verses.
	Just sacrilege.
	A goal of mine would be to get a little closer to Islam's influence.
	I mean, when they tell you not to make a cartoon, people listen.
	I'm really chuckling. And you've got to watch the whole thing.
	So follow Ryan Long.
	By the way, he's at RyanLongComedy on Twitter.
	And watch the whole thing.
	I'll close here by talking about the effectiveness of ridicule.
	See, very often when we're faced with this woke culture, all this political correctness, all this total nonsense, we're tempted to feel dispirited and deplore it and denounce it and revile it and expose it.
	But sometimes the most effective way to deal with it is through the chuckle, the guffaw, the uncontrollable laughter, the you people are ridiculous, you're fools, and I'm going to bring out your stupidity by mocking you and mimicking you.
	Laughter is a very powerful weapon.
	In fact, I think the philosopher Nietzsche showed the power of ridicule.
	He's able to take on some of the most powerful thinkers of all time, including people like Socrates and Kant, and in a sense make fools of them by picking on something that they say or stand for that is preposterous.
	Woke culture is preposterous.
	Ryan Long is all over it.
	We need a lot more Ryan Longs, and we need a lot more culture-making on our side.
	The way to drive out bad culture is not through commentary, criticism, denunciation, but by creating good culture in its place.
	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 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 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.
	Mary and I are lifetime members.
	Go to amac.us and join now.
	Join AMAC today.
	That website again, amac.us.
	It's mailbox time, and every now and then I get a question that's a really tough one, in some ways even profound.
	Here's a question from Lisa.
	Hi, Dinesh. I understand that Texas is considering succeeding from the Union.
	And since you live in Texas, I was just wondering what your thoughts are on that and whether or not you expect other states to follow.
	Thanks. Wow, what a question.
	Well, the issue of secession, of you may say breaking away, is a question that always arises in a deeply divided society.
	And in some ways it is kind of a mutual question because if one side wants to break away, it's kind of like if one partner wants to get a divorce, it's almost always the case that the other person does too.
	Why? Because something is fundamentally not working.
	Now, We tend to think of secession very much in terms of the South, slavery, the secession of 1860.
	But I would say that the United States has actually had a number of secession movements.
	The first secession movement was in 1776, in which we, i.e.
	America, the colonies, seceded from the British.
	The colonies broke away and created their own country.
	That was the first secession.
	The second secession, interestingly enough, was in 1789.
	And what I mean by that is that the founders in Philadelphia Seceded from the Articles of Confederation.
	The Articles of Confederation clearly were intended to be, quote, in perpetuity.
	They made no provision for the Articles themselves to be abolished.
	But by tossing out the Articles of Confederation and replacing them with a new constitution, this represented, at least from a kind of legal or constitutional point of view, a secession.
	In the 1800s, it's not well known, but there were New Englanders who wanted to secede from the Union.
	By and large, these were Federalists associated with Washington's old party.
	They didn't like the ascent to power of the Jefferson Republicans.
	And New England wanted to get out of the Union.
	The secession movement didn't work and collapsed, I believe, after the War of 1812, but nevertheless, there was a secession movement in the Northeast.
	And that was even before the secession movement in South Carolina, which occurred in the middle part of the 19th century.
	And by the way, that wasn't over slavery, at least not directly.
	It was over the issue of tariffs.
	Basically, South Carolina complained that the North was imposing confiscatory tariffs, which were aimed at enriching the North at the expense of the South, and South Carolina threatened not just nullification of those laws, but secession from the Union if it came to that.
	And then, of course, we know about the secession of 1860.
	Now, is secession ever permissible?
	After the Civil War, it's tempting to answer to that question an absolute no.
	But, oddly enough, this was not Abraham Lincoln's view of the matter.
	And I turn for my analysis to Lincoln's own first inaugural, which was a massive argument against secession.
	Lincoln was explaining why secession is bad.
	And he says, I think quite correctly, that secession, the principle of secession, is the principle of anarchy.
	If you keep breaking away, and let's say you set up the Confederate States of America, what if someone wants to secede from that?
	There's no end to the matter.
	And Lincoln also makes the point that secession or a separation must be mutual.
	If states want to secede from the union, it's not just the states who have to want to do it, but the other states have got to agree to it.
	There's got to be a kind of mutual recognition of a sort of, you may say, friendly parting.
	But in the middle of this, and this is often true by the way of argument, someone is making an argument for X, but contained in that argument are the conditions which show when this X that is supposed to be prohibited might be permitted.
	It's kind of like if I were to say to you, I'm a cop and you rob a store, and I say, why did you rob that store?
	Your family wasn't starving.
	Well, I'm kind of saying that if your family were starving, You might still be accountable, but you might have a good reason for robbing the store.
	You were in extremis and extreme circumstances.
	Now, Lincoln, in addressing, I think, specifically the South, but speaking to the country generally, in his inaugural, says this.
	He asks the simple question, what right?
	What right? Have I violated?
	He agrees. He says the Southerners believe, the Southern Democrats in particular, that their constitutional rights have been violated.
	And Lincoln says, I think not.
	Think, if you can, of a single instance in which a plainly written provision of the Constitution has ever been denied.
	If by the mere force of numbers a majority should deprive a minority of any clearly written constitutional right, it might in a moral point of view justify revolution.
	Certainly would if such right were a vital one.
	So here's what Lincoln is saying.
	The majority does not have the right to take away the enumerated constitutional rights of the minority.
	The majority does not have the right to take away the free speech rights, the right to conscience, the right to assembly, and all the other rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights.
	Even majorities cannot take away those rights.
	Lincoln says, I haven't done it.
	If you show me where I did it, you might have a case.
	And Lincoln in effect says, if the majority does do it, That does supply a moral, Lincoln emphasizes moral, argument for secession.
	And he even says that that is certain if the right is a vital one.
	In other words, if we're talking about a basic right.
	Bottom line, I don't think we are at the point of secession.
	I do think that we have seen in America something of a, let's call it the secession of the American mind.
	And that means that in some ways we have seized to be full fellow citizens of each other.
	We are no longer friends, even if we aren't fully enemies.
	This issue of secession isn't going away, but I hope I've given you at least the beginning of a way to think about it and to show that Lincoln, even though the formidable opponent of secession, believed that under certain conditions it could be permitted.
	Subscribe to the Dinesh D'Souza podcast on Apple, Google, and Spotify.

▲