All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 23, 2021 - Dinesh D'Souza
01:01:58
DEPARTMENT OF INJUSTICE Dinesh D’Souza Podcast Ep32
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Coming up, Joe Biden's Department of Injustice.
Why did the Supreme Court sell us out?
And get ready for a laugh, Michelle Obama's college thesis.
This is the Dinesh D'Souza podcast.
Hey, I hope you're enjoying it.
It's fun for me to do.
I hope it's fun for you to listen to or to watch.
Please make sure you subscribe, put on your notifications so you know when the podcast is popping up, and also share the podcast with others.
I'd really appreciate it.
This podcast is sponsored by Mike Lindell and MyPillow.
I want to talk today about Mike's great Giza Dream Bed Sheets.
I sleep on these every night.
They're just awesome.
These dream sheets are made with long staple cotton.
Mike guarantees they will be the most comfortable sheets you ever own.
The first night you sleep on the sheets, you'll never want to sleep on anything else.
The Giza Dream Sheets are available in a variety 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, Mike is offering buy one, get one free by calling 800-876-0227 and just use the promo code Dinesh.
So for a limited time, you can buy one, get one free.
call 800-876-0227 or just go to MyPillow.com, but make sure to use the promo code Dinesh.
America needs this voice.
The times are crazy and a time of confusion, division, and lies.
We need a brave voice of reason, understanding, and truth.
This is the Dinesh D'Souza Podcast.
I've been watching the testimony of Merrick Garland, Joe Biden's pick to be Attorney General, head of the Justice Department.
And I'm beginning to wonder if we are going to have, going forward, not a department of justice, but a department of injustice.
This fellow Garland is, to look at him, a very straight-laced fellow.
He looks like one of the members of the legal elite.
He speaks in a measured tone.
But you have to listen to what he's saying to realize that he has a very strange notion of justice.
One that apparently does not involve the normal rules of due process, nor does it involve one of the fundamental principles of justice, proportionality, having a sense of moral proportion when you compare two things.
And moreover, equal rights under the law, the idea that citizens should be treated equally or the same for doing the same types of offenses.
Now, with Garland, he was asked About the events of January 6th.
And he made, I think, a shocking comparison to the Oklahoma City bombing, the bombing of the federal building with massive casualties.
Listen. Currently, though, we are faced with elements that weren't there 25 years ago in Oklahoma City.
A proliferation of weapons.
Secondly, social media and the Internet.
Which serves as a gathering place for many of these domestic terrorists.
What are your thoughts about how we should deal with those elements from law enforcement viewpoint?
Well, Mr. Chairman, I certainly agree that we are facing a more dangerous period than we faced in Oklahoma City.
So, not only is Garland comparing January 6th with Oklahoma City, he thinks January 6th was worse.
And in fact, the country, he says, is in a more dangerous situation.
So, Oklahoma City was an act of mass murder, massive amounts of casualties deliberately caused.
By blowing up a building with people in it, lots of people in it.
Now, that didn't happen on January 6th, but to say that it's worse is to sanction a kind of manhunt for people who were involved on January 6th, involved in any kind of way.
And it's very clear that when you look at what's actually happening on the ground, not just in general, The rhetoric of domestic terrorism, of insurgency, is being used in a way to go after people, even though their actual criminal culpability is very, very unclear.
And I want to clarify this by looking at a very particular case, someone who I myself thought was probably one of the most responsible parties, a woman named Jessica Watkins, a veteran.
Who was in the Capitol.
So one of the domestic terrorists, one of the insurgents.
And the question is, what did Jessica Watkins do?
Now, Jessica Watkins was part of a group that was planning to take the Capitol.
But what does take the Capitol mean?
It looks like her charges involve all kinds of hyenas conspiracy and so on.
But when you look at the charging documents, you start realizing there's an enormous amount of rhetorical bombast in them.
And the charging documents make it very unclear what it is that she did.
What is it that she did?
So what you'll find in the charging documents are things like, the crowd pushed its way.
So not Jessica Watkins did this, but the crowd did this.
Or they will talk about Watkins' single-minded devotion to obstruct.
How did you know it was her single-minded devotion?
Can you read her mind? So you've got all this kind of rhetorical bombast.
The crowd aggressively and repeatedly pulled on and assaulted the doors.
Assaulted the doors. But it's the crowd doing it.
Again, it's not clear that she did it.
So now we have to look at what Jessica Watkins has to say.
And I'm reading her reply brief to the charges.
It's very eye-opening.
Because, it turns out, she did not use any force or violence or threaten any person.
She got into the Capitol, but she didn't vandalize anything in the Capitol.
She didn't destroy any property.
She did not search for members of Congress.
She didn't harass any police officers.
She spoke to several officers.
She did what they said.
And so, the question is...
Where's the analogy to the Oklahoma City bombing?
Why is this woman being treated like she is a grave threat to national security?
I'm not saying she didn't break the law.
I'm not saying she shouldn't be charged.
But what I am saying is that the rhetoric that's being used both by the senators who are questioning Merrick Garland and his replies suggest a raising of the temperature that appears to be disproportionate to what actually happened.
The government says that Jessica Watkins, quote, That's significant.
No police officer suggested the building was restricted or even that she was required to leave.
And so, this is not the easy case.
This is the hard case. This woman is supposed to be one of the worst malefactors.
According to journalist Julie Kelly, she says she's reviewed charges against more than 200 people arrested for criminal misconduct.
So far, only two have been charged with unlawful possession of a firearm.
And there's no proof that either of those two guys even breached the Capitol, let alone threatened lawmakers or any of it.
So this overwrought rhetoric about, you know, threatening the democratic process as if these lawmakers' lives were in mortal danger, democracy itself hung in the balance.
Again, this is disproportionate to what actually happened.
In the end, I think, we're seeing a kind of witch hunt here.
A witch hunt that is not making the proper distinctions between trespass, being in a restricted area, maybe shouting, unlawfully demonstrating where you're not allowed to, and Something else,
which is domestic terrorism, an attempted coup, criminal conspiracy to cause violence, all of this stuff is being blended together to maximize the culpability of people who are simply trying to get their voices heard.
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.
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 and recently got ink on her pants, and Genesis 950 took it right off.
Genesis 950 has 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 only available for a one-gallon purchase.
Genesis 950.
It's much cheaper than replacing your carpets.
There was a very revealing moment in the hearings of Merrick Garland, Joe Biden's pick for Attorney General, in which he was asked, Garland was asked by Senator Josh Hawley, about assaults on federal property in places like Portland.
Hawley says, Do you regard assaults on federal courthouses or other federal property as acts of domestic extremism, domestic terrorism?
And Garland gives a very interesting answer.
He goes, Well, Senator, my own definition is the use of violence or threats of violence in an attempt to disrupt the democratic process that is, according to him, domestic terrorism.
Then he says, So an attack on a courthouse while in operation, trying to prevent judges from actually deciding cases, that plainly is domestic extremism, domestic terrorism.
An attack simply on a government property at night or any other kind of circumstances, he says, is a crime, but he's not willing to go so far as to call it domestic terrorism.
So you can see what's going on here.
Basically, Garland is trying to say, January 6th, an attack on our democratic process.
Why? Because it occurred during the day when democratic processes were going on.
Antifa attacks, all of them, as long as they're not occurring while judicial processes are underway, doesn't really qualify.
Now, let me say first of all why I think this is bogus.
It's special pleading.
It's a cover for one type of crime, actually for a worse type of crime, while it's an attempt to exaggerate another type of offense.
First of all, In what way did the march on the Capitol and the occupation of the Capitol, quote, disrupt the democratic process?
The truth of it is, it didn't.
The democratic process was delayed for, what, an hour, two, and then proceeded normally.
So, we're talking here about not a suspension or ending of the democratic process, certainly not any kind of a meaningful coup.
There was no coup even attempted.
This was basically an attempt to try to get the legislators' attention.
They cleared the room. The protesters were cleared out.
They came back. The democratic process resumed.
There was no lethal threat to the democratic process at all.
By contrast, let's just say you take an attack on the Supreme Court, an attack on federal courthouses.
Those do disrupt the democratic process.
If you burn a courthouse down, what happens to all the cases that occur in that courthouse?
They obviously are going to be suspended, and certainly for a lot longer than an hour or two.
In fact, the message of burning the courthouse down is that the very thing that the courthouse represents...
Due process, equal justice under the law, having a procedure so that criminal defendants in civil cases can be heard, adjudicated by a neutral party.
All of that is under attack when you set fire to a courthouse.
And yet, according to Merrick Garland, that's in a little different category.
It shouldn't be taken all that seriously.
Now, I think the deeper significance of what Garland is getting at here...
He is obsessively concerned with protecting one type of liberty while ignoring another type that is equally, if not more, important.
The French writer Benjamin Constant, many years ago, wrote an essay called The Liberty of the Ancients as Opposed to the Moderns.
He was talking about two different types of liberty.
And he said that for the ancient Greeks, liberty meant nothing more than showing up in the public square, the agora, and casting your vote.
This was the sole liberty that the Greeks had.
They didn't have freedom of speech.
They certainly didn't have freedom of religion.
They didn't have normal types of liberty that we think of today, but they had the liberty to participate in a democratic process.
And it was direct democracy, not to elect representatives, but to vote directly on issues of the day.
And this is what Constant calls the liberty of the ancients.
Modern liberty, says Constant, is about living your ordinary life.
It's about going about your business.
It's about being able to eat in a restaurant without being terrorized.
Start a business without having your business torched or threatened.
It's about ultimately trying to live your life according to a script that you write for yourself.
And I think this liberty for ordinary Americans is more important because it affects our daily life.
We cast our ballot every two or four years, so that's one type of liberty.
Let's call that the ancient type.
But the modern type, as constant, is the ordinary liberty of being able to interact with people, to say what you think, to go to church on Sunday if you choose to, to assemble, to participate in civic community, and so on.
Now, Antifa attacks all that.
They threaten businesses and they burn them.
They pull people out of their cars, they pull people out of restaurants, and they threaten them.
So Antifa is interfering not just with courthouse liberty, but also with liberty in the ordinary sense of life.
But see, for Merrick Garland, he doesn't care about that type of liberty.
He doesn't care about the ordinary liberty of the ordinary citizen.
But why do we have a Justice Department?
Do we really need a Justice Department to protect the already heavily protected buildings of Congress?
That's why we have a DOJ? No!
We have a DOJ so that justice is neutrally administered to ordinary citizens, conducting their ordinary business in the ordinary course.
of life. Something else that Garland said struck me.
He was talking about, he was asked about illegal immigrants crossing the border and he was asking if that was a crime.
Here's what he said. Listen.
Talk a little bit more about the law enforcement challenges at the border, which I know a number of other members have brought up with you.
Just a fundamental question.
Do you believe that illegal entry at America's border should remain a crime?
Well, I haven't thought about that question.
I just haven't thought about that question.
He hasn't thought about it.
He really doesn't know.
This is the nominee for the chief judicial officer in the country.
Illegal immigration involves the breaking of laws.
This is the police agency of the government entrusted with enforcing the law And, gee, he just hasn't thought about it.
He doesn't know if it's a crime.
So what you have here is, and I think it is a feigned ignorance.
It's not that he hasn't thought about it.
He's actually an intelligent man.
He's thought about it. But he doesn't want to say that this is blatant law-breaking.
Of course it's a crime. Now, how it should be treated, what level of crime, what appropriate penalties are, that can all be debated.
The very fact that he's unwilling to even say it's a crime shows you...
That he knows that he's part of a party that wants to sanction, to allow, to permit, even to encourage, this particular type of criminality, this particular type of lawbreaking.
So how ironic it is that we have a Justice Department that doesn't seem all that interested in the basic principles of justice, at least not under this dude.
And the only kind of lawbreaking that matters to him is lawbreaking committed by the other side, lawbreaking that the Democrats are helped by or somehow are helped politically by.
That's the kind of lawbreaking that they just haven't given a lot of thought to.
If you know the D'Souzas, we're very selective with our partnerships, and Eggert Watches is the company we're really 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 should check them out. What is Freedom is the first short film.
Elon put his company on the line to take a firm stance on censorship.
It's not the first time he's done that.
Ilan 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, Ilan made a video celebrating men called What is a Man in response to Gillette Corporation painting the picture of toxic masculinity in American culture.
Again, all these videos can be accessed on their website.
Most important of all, Eggert makes incredible watches.
Debbie and I are both wearing one today.
You can sort of check mine out right here.
And look at the, not just the watch, but look at the band.
The craftsmanship and uniqueness is really something to marvel at.
They feel a lot more expensive than they are.
Elon gave us the 15% off to share with you using the promo code Dinesh at checkout.
So now you have two reasons to visit.
It's egardwatches.com, E-G-A-R-D watches.com.
Come for the watches, stay for the conservative film.
The Supreme Court's decision...
Not to take the cases involving voter irregularities, voter fraud, This, I think, is a deep disappointment.
It's a disappointment because those cases were desperately crying out to be heard, to be adjudicated.
And this is very important for our democratic process itself because our democratic process relies on free and fair elections.
For the court, I believe it was a grievous sin of omission.
Now, sins of omission are generally held to be not as bad as sins of commission.
A sin of commission is something that you do.
A sin of omission is just something that you fail to do.
But sometimes sins of omission can be worse.
Because imagine if you're at home and you hear loud banging on your door and someone is a young woman there who's being chased by a rapist and she's in desperate conditions and she screams out for help and you don't open the door.
You do nothing.
Well, it's a sin of Omission.
You can say, I didn't do anything.
I just didn't open the door.
But think of the consequence of you not opening the door.
Think of what happens because you didn't open the door and offer help that you were in a position to give.
And that's where the Supreme Court is.
Now, I think what makes this so disappointing, well, first of all, it should be noted that there were three justices, Alito, Gorsuch, and Thomas, who wanted to hear the case, who wanted to push forward.
But a great disappointment is that two people that we fought for very hard and placed a lot of hope in, Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, Joined with Justice Roberts and the liberals to squelch these cases, to basically, in terms of Pontius Pilate, wash their hands off this matter.
And their justification was that the case, the Pennsylvania case in particular, is moot.
Moot why? Moot because even if they heard the case, the number of votes involved in allowing ballots to come in after Election Day, kind of a three-day deadline beyond Election Day, Even if you counted those votes, it wouldn't make a difference to the state of Pennsylvania.
Now, interestingly for the court, when the Texas case was presented before, the court said that Texas had no standing.
Texas should be concerned with its own elections inside of Texas, but Texas in a sense has no business peeking its head into what is going on, let's say, in Michigan or Pennsylvania or Arizona or any other state. Now, first of all, on the face of it, this Supreme Court argument is dubious. It's dubious because after all we are in a national election, not a state election.
So let's just take an extreme case.
Let's just say, for example, that Michigan decided that African Americans should have two votes, but white people one vote.
Would the Supreme Court hold, well, Texas, you know what?
It's none of your business.
That's up to that state to decide.
They can make whatever rules they want.
No. What does this do?
Texas raised the issue of equal protection of the laws.
Well, let's say, for example, Arizona decides to let non-citizens vote.
Again, a flagrant violation, and this would obviously change the outcome in Arizona.
By changing the outcome in Arizona, it might change the national outcome.
But again, would the Supreme Court say, well, Texas, what do you have to do with any of that?
Who cares if Arizona allows non-citizens to vote?
That's their violation. It's none of your business.
How can it be none of our business when we're talking about electing a president for all of us?
What if Wisconsin decided people who are 12 years old to vote?
So the point I'm trying to get at here is that the Supreme Court's reasoning was flatly specious.
Namely, that Texas is in no position or is not relevant to Texas as to what happens in these other swing states.
Of course it's relevant, and yet the Supreme Court punted on it.
Of course, Texas wasn't saying, by the way, that it, Texas, gets the right to make election laws for these other states.
Texas's point was, these states broke their own laws.
And by breaking their own laws, in a sense, cheated on an outcome that is not just pertinent to one state, but pertinent to the entire country.
And now when we turn to the Pennsylvania case, there obviously are two issues involved.
Yes, there is the issue of the 2020 election, and perhaps in that sense, the Pennsylvania outcome is moot, but...
What about future elections?
What message does the Supreme Court send when it's essentially telling the country, yeah, you know what, there might have been a serious constitutional violation here, but we, the Supreme Court, aren't really going to get into that.
Let's remember that the Constitution is kind of clear on this subject.
The Constitution spells out very clearly that election law should be made not by judges, but by state legislatures.
Now, in Pennsylvania, that was flatly ignored.
Basically, the Pennsylvania court ruled that the legislature could be Set aside.
And because of COVID and a bunch of other reasons, if ballots came in three days later, that's fine.
You could perfectly well count them.
Now... The Supreme Court, in a sense, I think, by saying that none of this matters, is providing a green light to the left and to the Democrats to keep doing these kinds of shenanigans.
After all, if you do them, you're not held accountable, and the court goes, before there's no standing and after it's moot, the Supreme Court is basically saying that We're not the guardians of the Constitution.
We're going to allow constitutional violations and we are too timid, too reluctant, To interfere, we want to wash our hands off the matter.
And by washing their hands off the matter, the Supreme Court ultimately is washing its hands off the principle of fairness itself.
They're undermining the democratic process so that they can keep, in their view, clean hands.
What a tragedy. Do you think there's a coincidence between Biden signing over 40 executive orders in his first couple of weeks of office and the price of silver skyrocketing?
No. There's no coincidence.
Savvy investors know that precious metals are a hedge against inflation and government stupidity.
And Birch Gold Group is not only your headquarters for gold, but silver too.
If you want to purchase physical gold or silver dropships straight to your door or help converting an IRA or eligible 401k, We're good to go.
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.
I want to talk about the unreliability of the site Wikipedia.
Now, this is a site that is enormously influential.
It's very often the first site that people go to to look things up.
And yet, the Wikipedia descriptions, particularly when politics is involved, are so one-sided, so tendentious, so partisan, That you can't attach any reasonable weight to them at all.
And in fact, realistically, most academic institutions, by the way, colleges and universities know that.
In most colleges and schools, a student is not allowed to cite Wikipedia for the reason that Wikipedia is notoriously unreliable.
I've noticed this, of course, in my own Wikipedia.
And people say, oh, Dinesh, you know, you can correct your own Wikipedia.
No, you can't. Wikipedia has a whole team of editors.
You can weigh in if you want, but it's their say, it is ultimately Wikipedia's say as to what goes on your description.
And right if you look at my description, first of all, right here I see in the very first line, he's an Indian-American, far right, far right.
First of all, I'm not far right.
I'm no more further right than prominent liberals are on the left.
They're never called far left.
So right here, you begin to see the kind of weighted type of labeling.
I mean, I've been in the mainstream of the right.
My first job was at the Heritage Foundation.
I've been at all the major think tanks.
I was in the Reagan White House, the American Enterprise Institute.
I've written for the National Review, the American Spectator, a commentary.
So what makes me exactly far right?
If I'm far right, what's center right?
Mitt Romney? So right away you see what Wikipedia is up to.
And also I'm described as a conspiracy theorist.
Now... A conspiracy theorist allegedly alleges that the world operates according to conspiracies.
Conspiracies are sort of organized schemes hatched by groups of people.
But I've never, to my knowledge, alleged a conspiracy theory in my life.
None of my books are based on conspiracy theories.
Illiberal education was about how you basically had this, quote, victims revolution on the campus.
Powerful trends of illiberalism within the faculty, no conspiracy.
The end of racism, no conspiracy.
My theories about Obama.
Obama got his ideas from his father.
I got that out of Obama's own book called Dreams from My Father.
In my movie about Obama, I play Obama talking about standing and weeping at his father's grave where his father's spirit entered him and so on.
So there's no conspiracy. I'm kind of taking Obama's word for it.
If you look at my book, The United States of Socialism, I talk about how there's a whole spectrum.
I say that if you think of the free market on one end and you think about socialism on the other, you can see that all the Democrats are pulling in the socialist direction.
But then I distinguish between people who are overt socialists, like AOC or Ilhan Omar.
People I call socialist light, like Elizabeth Warren.
And then people who are ultimately not socialist, but nevertheless moving in the direction of socialism in the name of progressivism.
So again, there's no attempt to create a conspiracy.
We're talking about gradations on one political side of the aisle.
Now, all of this is relevant because I saw an interesting article in Breitbart About a big fight in Wikipedia about whether to call the events of January 6th a coup.
And what's interesting is when you go into Wikipedia, you see the massive infighting and the kind of way in which people who dispute these characterization, Wikipedia editors, who say, wait a minute, there was no coup.
Immediately, those guys get banned.
Those guys get stigmatized.
They try to kick those guys off the platform.
So, it's a very interesting window into the bowels of Wikipedia, and it turns out that Wikipedia knows that these labels are highly tendentious.
These labels carry with them a lot of suggestion.
So, for example, there was one guy who objected to calling the January 6th protest A riot.
And in fact, this guy goes on to point out, we've seen riots.
We've seen Antifa riots.
And on Wikipedia, in the aftermath of George Floyd, all of that stuff, all of that violence, all of that destruction, you, Wikipedia, didn't call that a riot.
So, there are people inside of Wikipedia who call this stuff out.
But the editor who did that was immediately accused of doing, quote, a racist talking point.
And another editor jumps right in and bans this guy.
Bans the editor. So, Wikipedia, it turns out, a lot of their editors are big supporters of Antifa.
They also apply this differential analysis in which if something occurs from the right, the crime, the offense is greatly magnified.
If something occurs on the left, it is minimized.
It is downplayed.
And so, they...
They are using this, and sometimes they actually know that they're lying.
So, for example, Wikipedia was called out when it was said that Trump was promoting violence.
Wikipedia had as proof Trump's comment to, quote, fight like hell.
Now, other guys on Wikipedia weighed in to say, wait a minute, Trump wasn't talking about fighting in the physical sense.
Fighting like hell is a standard trope of political rhetoric.
Trump specifically said people should march peacefully and patriotically.
And this was the Wikipedia reaction.
They basically say, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.
Many reliable sites, meaning not Wikipedia, other sites, other leftist sources.
Have used Trump's, quote, fight like hell to prove, to suggest that Trump was stirring up violence.
So we, Wikipedia, are going to rely on those sites.
So here you have basically someone who wants to apply this kind of partisan interpretation, relying on other partisans to provide intellectual cover for what they're doing.
The bottom line, a lot of the...
Information. You know, there was a day when we could look at an encyclopedia and by and large say, this is a description of the Roman Empire.
This is what the Kennedy presidency was like.
This is a description of Watergate.
And even though we recognize that there's no such thing as a kind of value-free description, you felt that there was at least an attempt to be fair-minded, to be balanced, to say what's going on.
It's very clear with Wikipedia.
They don't see their mission that way.
They use the Wikipedia, the encyclopedia invocation.
But far from being an encyclopedia, this is a hack operation.
It's a partisan hit job.
It's managed by a group of tendentious editors on the inside.
Don't believe a word of it.
It's always fun for me to talk to Mike Lindell of MyPillow because I like talking to him about his entrepreneurial spirit, the way he thinks about his business and the way he does it.
Here's a little clip that gives you a glimpse into that.
Listen. Now, you're kind of a household name, I think, for a simple reason, and that is you're all over television.
Right. And your face, you.
Right. And so you're unusual, perhaps, in that you market your own product.
And so that tells me that there's a third thing you do.
You thought of the idea for it.
You organized it, but you also sell it.
Hello, I'm Mike Lindell, inventor of MyPillow.
Thanks to your support, you've helped make MyPillow become one of the fastest-growing companies in America.
Mike not only knows how to make a pillow, he also knows marketing.
And his pillows are really something.
For most of my life, I thought, you know, a pillow's a pillow.
There's nothing special about a pillow.
But that's until I began to put my head down on my pillow.
And what Mike Lindell taught me is that a pillow, like a watch, a phone, or a car, can be kind of a work of art.
These pillows won't go flat.
You can wash and dry them as often as you want.
They maintain their shape. They're made in the USA. For a limited time, Mike is offering these premium MyPillows for the lowest price ever.
You can get the queen-size premium MyPillow for $29.98.
It's normally $69.98, so that's $40 off.
And the King Pillows are only $5 more.
All the products come with a 10-year warranty and a 60-day money-back guarantee.
So go to MyPillow.com.
Make sure to use the promo code Dinesh.
You get deep discounts not just on the pillows, but all the MyPillow products, 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 you use promo code Dinesh.
Democrats on the left are often accused of having a deaf ear, of not caring about a small business, and the difficulties and challenges, particularly now, of running a small business.
Well, you see this insensitivity, this kind of moral blindness, you might say, very clearly in a recent exchange involving Democratic Representative Ro Khanna.
Listen. Well, of course, large businesses like Amazon and McDonald's, for example, can and perhaps should pay more.
But I'm wondering, what is your plan for smaller businesses?
How does this, in your view, affect mom and pop businesses who are just struggling to keep their doors open, keep workers on the payroll right now?
Well, they shouldn't be doing it by paying people low wages.
We don't want low-wage businesses.
So he doesn't even want businesses that are having difficulty paying $15 an hour to exist.
He's like, go out of business.
What do we care? We don't want those businesses around.
We only want businesses that can pay whatever floor we establish.
Because we think that is the going rate.
A going rate, by the way, is set not by the market, but set by the Biden administration and Ro Khanna.
Now... All of this, I think, first of all, you know, any libertarian or economist listening is going to go, this seems to show no basic understanding of economics at all.
And by the way, that's a disease that is widespread on the Democratic side.
Just recently, I saw a fascinating quote by Maxine Waters.
By the way, Maxine Waters is now chairing a committee on the subject.
She goes, she's talking about the stock market.
Why aren't customers entitled to a refund when they lose money on stocks?
So her idea is if you invest, you lose money on stocks, you deserve a refund.
And I tweet out on this, I go, for the same reason that they are not required to give the profits back when they make money on stocks.
So the stock market is a gamble.
A gamble that may not be a reckless gamble, but it's a gamble in the sense that you are hoping for gains, but you are aware from the beginning, when you get into it, that you could lose.
So, apparently Maxine Waters doesn't realize this.
And Ro Khanna, for his part, doesn't realize that, look, the idea of getting a job Is a transaction between two people.
Someone who needs a job.
Now, it could be a family man, and we could argue about whether this country needs a family wage for the breadwinner who has a wife and two children, and should the government provide some sort of minimum.
That's a little bit of a separate issue, because in the job market there are all kinds of people who are willing to work for less than $15 an hour.
I was. I worked as a waiter in a steakhouse, and I worked for a lot less than $10 an hour.
I think my hourly wage, now this is a while ago, was more like $4 an hour.
But the point is, the wage is set by, hey, I can afford to pay you this, are you willing to work for that?
And particularly when you're a teenager, you don't have the skills to be in the job market, and by the way, you're working part-time.
This is not a bad deal.
But for Ro Khanna, all these distinctions get sort of obliterated.
And what struck me as particularly kind of cold-hearted is the idea of not recognizing that in a COVID environment it is especially stressful on small businesses.
And I was thinking to myself, doesn't he know what they go through?
And I think the problem is that he does.
It's not that he doesn't, he does.
But he wants to push more people into unemployment.
He would rather that these guys, instead of working for a small business, instead of having productivity, being able to move up in life, all of which creates, you may almost call it, Republican sensibilities.
The idea of self-help, the idea of moving up the ladder.
He would rather that guy go on welfare, because now the Democrats sort of have him.
Now that guy is captive to a whole set of programs, And once you get on those and you become reliable on them and your skills begin to atrophy, you become a lifelong slug.
You become a lifelong parasite of the state.
In other words, you become a lifelong Democrat.
And it may be at the end of the day that Ro Khanna isn't stupid.
He's just cruel and politically cunning.
Today we're in a battle for truth and 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, If you want to challenge yourself, I encourage you right now 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.
That's ReflectionsDinesh.com.
The U.S. women's soccer team, which had become notorious for refusing to stand for the national anthem, which insisted upon taking a knee for the national anthem, is now standing for the national anthem again.
So, at first glance, this seems a bit of a surprise.
What's happened?
What's changed?
Has America ceased to have a racist legacy?
Have all the problems with police brutality been solved?
Suddenly, are we living in a glorious wonderland where the very phenomena that provoked you to go down on a knee in objection, to refuse the national anthem itself, now suddenly, you're in a different mood, you're in a different frame of mind, and What could have brought about this conversion, this epiphany?
Well, according to the soccer defender Crystal Dunn, she says, we're past the protesting phase.
So it's almost here that apparently for the soccer players there were phases.
We didn't know about this, but the first phase was the protesting phase.
And they've now gotten past that.
And she goes, even though we're choosing to stand, it doesn't mean the conversations go away or they stop.
So, in other words, they're now standing, but they're still having, quote, conversations.
And she says that they're now going to move from the protesting phase to, quote, putting in the work.
Wait, you weren't putting in any work before?
You were just making symbolic protests?
It's very obvious what's kind of going on here, and it has nothing to do with these idiotic phases.
Basically, the idea is that Trump was in office and it was time to hate America.
It was time to hate America because America, including the National Anthem, was identified with Trump.
Now that Biden's in office, America itself, including the National Anthem, takes on a new meaning, a new aroma.
And so what was previously objectionable, standing for the anthem, is now not only permissible, but desired.
Because there's a new sheriff in town.
There's a new regime in town.
America looks more hopeful.
Reminds me a lot of what Michelle Obama said right after Obama's election.
Listen. But what we've learned over this year is that Hope is making a comeback.
It is making a comeback, and let me tell you something.
For the first time in my adult lifetime, I'm really proud of my country.
Yeah, put me in the White House and hope will make a...
Hope itself is attached to me and Barack.
We represent hope.
Everybody else represents despair.
The sheer effrontery, the sheer arrogance.
And for the first time in her life, I mean, how telling is that?
Here's a woman who has been taught and bred...
She's marinated in a kind of hatred of America.
She gets all the benefits of America, all the privileges of America.
Her importance is inflated way beyond her ability.
And yet, she's taught at the same time to despise America, and maybe she also realizes that despising America is part of the ladder that she climbs, a ladder of opportunity that you get by bashing America, not by Not by praising it.
It's sometimes said that behind every double standard, there is a single standard waiting to be uncovered.
So, for example, when the champions of free speech in the 1960s, the Berkeley free speech movement, when those guys become professors, They stop believing in free speech.
That's because they were for free speech when they were on the outs, free speech for themselves.
Once they are on the ins, they don't believe in free speech anymore.
In other words, they never believed in it as a principle at all.
It was ultimately all about us being on the inside so we can control things as opposed to somebody else controlling things.
Circling back to the soccer team.
I think that the soccer team is basically saying we're not really a soccer team.
We're a political operation.
We have cast our lot with the left.
We are, you may say, we are soccer players who only kick with our left leg.
And when the other side is in power, the right leg is taking control of the country, we're out.
We're anti-American.
But when the lefties come in, our team, suddenly we become mysteriously, magically, and symbolically pro-American.
What a bunch of frauds.
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 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 make sure that its members get all the benefits, discounts, and services you can find in one place.
Join AMAC today. Debbie and I are lifetime members.
We're taking advantage of all the great discounts they have to offer.
Go to DineshForAMAC.com and join now.
The website again is DineshForAMAC.com.
We're going to talk in this segment about Michelle Obama, and I'm going to read a few sections from her Princeton College thesis.
And probably going to be chuckling or laughing while I do it.
But I want to situate this whole episode or segment in a context.
And the context is that we need in this country to have elites that we can respect and that we can trust.
When I was in my teens and early 20s, I looked up to all kinds of intellectual and political elites.
I looked up to the influence of Friedrich Hayek, the economist, Milton Friedman, Alexander Solzhenitsyn.
William F. Buckley.
Later, when I joined the Reagan White House, I was interviewed for my job by Howard Baker, who was the Chief of Staff.
So these are intellectual and political elites.
But I felt, and I don't know if it was my naivete upon being young, I don't think so, that these were substantial people who had substantial ideas and substantial skills, in the case of Howard Baker, of negotiation and political maturity and political wisdom.
And that was true not just of Howard Baker, of course, it was true of Secretary of the Treasury James Baker, Secretary of State George Shultz, Bill Bennett at the Department of Education, and so on.
I say all this because Michelle Obama presents herself.
She's part of, I would call it, the new elite in America.
And you can just see this by the fact that she's not only on every fashion magazine for her fabled beauty.
I mean, she's on a lot more fashion magazines than, let's say, Melania Trump ever was.
But she's also consulted as an authority, as an intellectual, as somebody with a lot of wisdom.
And she sees herself that way.
She gave an interview recently in which she was talking about elites.
And Michelle Obama says, and I'm now kind of quoting her, she goes...
I've been at every powerful table you can think of.
They're not that smart.
So she presents this as kind of a discovery to young women everywhere.
She says, quote, I have been at probably every powerful table you can think of.
I've worked at non-profits.
I've been at foundations.
I've worked in corporations, served on corporate boards.
I've been at the G summits.
I've sat in the UN. They're not that smart.
So... Basically, what Michelle Obama is saying is that she's the smart one.
She just discovered that she's actually as smart, if not smarter.
Why else would she be on all these boards?
Why else would she herself have access to all these elite precincts of American life?
So, given all this, it's really instructive to do what I did, which is go online, and you can do it yourself, and search and pull up Michelle Obama's college thesis.
Written, by the way, this is the thesis for her to get the Princeton degree.
And her topic itself is kind of remarkable.
She's not writing about Frederick Douglass, so she's not writing about immigration in the 19th century.
Here's our topic. Princeton educated blacks in the black community.
She's basically doing a thesis on being black at Princeton.
Wow. This is for the Department of Sociology, but I think as we get into this thesis, you'll see that she should have gotten her degree not in Sociology, but perhaps in Obviousology.
Now I'm going to read.
I'm going to try to keep a straight face.
But I think you'll begin to see what we're dealing with here.
This is the kind of new elite of American life.
I'm quoting now Michelle Obama.
In an individual's lifetime, it is necessary that the individual focus his, her interests on benefiting a limited number of things at a time because it is impossible to help everyone and everything equally at the same time.
So, yeah, we need to have some priorities.
Therefore, continues Michelle Obama, the individual must create a motivational hierarchy from which the individual can determine which social groups are the most important to benefit.
Some individuals may place the highest value on benefiting themselves or their families.
Others may value their occupational fields most highly in still other instances one's motivation to benefit.
Either the U.S. society, the non-white races of the world, or the human species as a whole could be most powerful.
In summary, people have different sets of priorities.
This is the point of her study.
The study accomplishes, no, she writes not accomplishes, but accomplishes.
So this is a thesis riddled with grammatical and spelling errors.
Anyway, I'll skip over those.
The study accomplishes this measure of change by dividing the respondents' lives, she's doing a survey with these respondents, into three periods.
Pre-Princeton, she explains, years before entering college.
Princeton, parentheses, years in college.
And post-Princeton, years after graduating from college.
Very helpful parentheses right there.
It is important to realize that the change measured is that...
Which is perceived by the individual.
For example, the individual answering the question may believe that he, she has changed in no way at all.
However, if someone else, possibly a family member, were asked the same question about the individual, it is possible that they would believe that the individual has drastically changed.
In other words, we're going to be consulting you about your opinion of change, not other people about their opinions about you.
I read on. It is often difficult for some black students to adjust to Princeton's environment, and unfortunately, there are very few adequate support groups which provide some form of guidance and counsel for black students having difficulty making the transition from their home environment to Princeton.
This is true not just of blacks but of all students.
It's a difficult transition to college.
Now comes the crushing line.
Most students are dependent upon the use of their own faculties to carry them through Princeton.
Whose faculties are we supposed to rely on?
This is the whole point of sending your kid off to college so they can rely on their own faculties, get through college, learn to become a grown-up, learn to become an adult.
But Michelle Obama is treating this as some kind of deprivation.
I continue. For this study, the pre-Princeton measure provides a rough idea of what kind of beliefs respondents held with respect to the dependent variables before entering college, and the post-Princeton measure provides some idea of what respondents' beliefs are after college.
This is a kind of decorative way of basically saying before, during, and after.
Thus, if findings show consistency between the two periods, pre-Princeton and post-Princeton, it may be possible that no change occurred as a result of their Princeton education.
Or possibly, in this case, Princeton's effect on the respondents' beliefs lasted for a short time and then no longer effected their attitudes, thus making these effects temporary.
Now, it goes on and on like this.
This is basically 7th grade prose, combined with 6th grade ideas.
And you may say, if this is an academic thesis, like, where are the references?
There are almost none of them. There are just like two or three.
At one point, this is a classic example.
She's talking about a professor named Carolyn DeJoy.
DeJoy discusses the claims of the negative effects of predominantly white universities on black students attending those universities.
Then comes this line. I feel the ideas she expressed are worth discussion.
So she can't corroborate or verify the ideas, but she feels that they're worth discussion.
Now I'm going to go to the footnote. Dr.
Carolyn DeJoy, low morale in higher education, blacks in predominantly white universities, source of article unknown.
So she has a citation, supposedly a scholarly citation, but she's not saying, she doesn't even know where it's from.
And yet this is an authority she appeals to.
Now, the writer Christopher Hitchens, commenting on this thesis, said the following, To describe it as hard to read would be a mistake.
The thesis cannot be, quote, read at all in the strict sense of the verb.
That is because it wasn't written in any known language.
Now, Hitchens here, you may say, is being unduly harsh, but I think he's being duly harsh.
This is not Princeton quality work.
This thesis is not just an indictment of Michelle Obama.
It's an indictment of Princeton.
And it shows that Princeton, in order to create this affirmative action environment, has not only lowered its standards, it's thrown them out altogether.
Remember, this is not the starting work of Princeton.
It is the culmination of a Princeton education.
Now, is this rank stupidity?
No. But it is rank mediocrity.
This is the kind of work that you would not expect of an American, someone making their way into the American intellectual or cultural elite.
So the simple truth is, Michelle is not the smartest person in the room.
Anymore than she is the most beautiful woman in America.
The problem is that Michelle has been led to believe these things.
In fact, right at the beginning of the thesis, she says something very illuminating.
She goes, she's thanking a bunch of people, and she thanks them for what?
Quote, And I think this is the heart of the problem.
That in general, education should at least at the outset make you feel bad about yourself.
That's what the Jesuits do.
That's what the Marines do. They make you feel bad.
They lower your self-esteem so it can be reconstructed on a firmer foundation.
But with people like Michelle Obama, they've been coddled, they've been pampered, they've been praised to the skies, they've been told that they are the great geniuses of the world, even when they maunder the most unspeakable and incomprehensible rubbish.
And then they carry that into adulthood, never improving, never getting better, never learning anything, because they've never believed that there was anything for them to learn.
Cybercrime is up 75%, and by far the most serious cybercrime to worry about is home title theft.
The job of the criminals is easier than you think.
The title documents to our homes are now online.
The thief finds your home's title and forges your signature on a quit-claim deed stating you sold your home to him.
Then he takes out loans on your home and leaves you in debt.
You won't know until late payment or eviction notices arrive.
Insurance doesn't cover you, and neither do common identity theft programs.
That's why I protect my home with Home Title Lock.
Hey, it's time for the mailbox.
And before we get there, I want to urge you, if you're enjoying the podcast, to hit subscribe, to hit the notifications so you're notified when the podcasts pop up.
And please share them.
If you're listening on Apple, please rate me five stars.
Our question is not an audio question, but an email question.
It's from a fellow named Frederick D'Souza.
No relation. And he says, amusingly enough, he goes, I became famous effortlessly, he writes, because of you, because of me, when my passengers asked me Oh, passengers.
Turns out the guy is a cab driver in New York.
So my passengers ask me if I'm related to you when driving yellow cab in New York City for the past 20 years.
I proudly tell them you are from my Goan community and I'm born and brought up in Mumbai just like Dinesh.
Then he asks, how do I deal with some Goans?
The Goans are the Indian Catholics who are from Goa who don't like me because I share your videos in Goanet.org forum.
So this is a forum. The Goans are sort of a diaspora living all over the world and this Goanet forum is a forum where they interact with each other and normally they interact about all kinds of Goan stuff like Portuguese recipes, how to cook certain types of fish and pork.
Goan dances and that kind of thing, but evidently this guy, Frederick, a cab driver, is dropping in political videos, videos about what's happening in the world, and the Goans are like, what?
What? Why are you putting this stuff up here?
It's disturbing our fish cooking recipes, and so on.
Listen, Frederick, you are a missionary to the Goan community, and since you are a cab driver in New York, you talk to a lot of people, you're very savvy about the world, you have a lot to teach the Goans.
So the bottom line of it is you need to develop a thick skin.
Don't worry about this Goan chatter.
Let the Goans know that their sources of information very often are extremely narrow, extremely parochial.
They get views about America that are not based upon living in America or the experience of America at all.
You, Frederick, are in a position to set them straight.
So be tough.
Get the message out.
Be a D'Souza. Fight on!
Subscribe to the Dinesh D'Souza Podcast on Apple, Google, and Spotify.
▲
Export Selection