All Episodes
Previous Next
March 9, 2021 - Dinesh D'Souza
59:23
COMING TO AMERICA Dinesh D’Souza Podcast Ep41
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
The illegals are swarming to America as Biden takes down the wall.
What are the implications?
The ethics of homosexuality.
And Marjorie Taylor Greene joins me to talk about Never Trump, the Equality Act, and how to drive the left insane.
This is the Dinesh D'Souza podcast.
Hope you're enjoying it.
Please hit the subscribe button and also the notifications button so you know when the next one pops up.
And also please share information about the podcast with your friends and family.
Help me to get the word out.
I really appreciate it.
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.
They say that imitation is a form of flattery, but one could almost say that immigration is a form of flattery.
And I say that because immigrants come to countries that don't suck.
One of the reasons America has been such a magnet for immigrants and continues to be is because it offers the possibilities for life that other countries don't offer.
So when they teach you in college that all cultures are equal, The immigrant is kind of a walking refutation of that.
The immigrant is voting against his or her own culture and in favor of another culture that they deem to be better.
Now, that all being said, America has always had, I mean we certainly have with small exceptions in our history, we've been a country very open to immigrants.
We take a lot of legal immigrants and now we take a million or so legal immigrants a year.
So it's not like we're not taking immigrants.
But there's a huge difference between legals and illegals.
And it's the illegals who are now flocking to the southern border.
And they're really doing it, you may almost say, at the invitation of Joe Biden.
Because Joe Biden publicly avowed that he would dismantle Trump's wall.
He publicly avowed that he would reverse Trump's policies.
One of the key policies under Trump is that if you show up illegally...
And you make a claim for asylum, or you make a claim that you should be allowed to stay, you would have to wait in the other country, in Mexico, until that claim had its turn in court, which can often be months, sometimes even a couple of years.
But Biden, very slyly, said, I'm going to change that.
I'm going to go back to Obama's catch and release.
I'm going to get a hold of you and I'm going to let you free in this country where you can dissolve into the general population.
You may or may not show up for your court date.
We won't know where you are if you don't.
So, in effect, we're letting you into America.
We're getting, you may say, around our own laws.
Now, interestingly, the media has been somewhat covering up for...
For Biden on this, pretending like, no, no, no, there's no open invitation, no, no, no, there's no crisis on the southern border.
Here's a very interesting clip in which John King of CNN begins by trying to poo-poo the idea of a crisis in the southern border and is then corrected by his own reporter on the scene.
Listen....that team to get a first-hand look at problems that include an influx of unaccompanied children.
President Biden wants to reverse or significantly change the Trump immigration approach from top to bottom.
He calls it a challenge.
His critics on the right are already up in arms about what they call a new Biden border crisis.
Let's get a reality check now from CNN immigration and politics policy reporter Priscilla Alvarez.
Priscilla, let's start. Here's the big question.
Is there a crisis at the southern border and within The question within the question, as you will, are more migrants crossing the border than before?
So the short answer, John, is that yes, we are seeing an increase of migrants at the U.S.-Mexico border.
And trends indicate that that number is probably going to grow in the coming weeks.
It's kind of a pity we didn't flash back to John King's face.
What? I've been corrected.
Yes, there's a crisis, and this is a crisis of the left and of the Democrats making.
They have essentially suspended, you may say, the rule of reason in the immigration debate, and they've corrupted it so much that even the language around it is distorted and disfigured.
It's difficult to really make sense of what's going on.
Undocumented immigrants are coming to America.
Undocumented immigrants?
I don't think the problem is a lack of documentation.
Illegals are not undocumented immigrants any more than someone who forcefully seizes my house as an undocumented owner.
No. Illegals aren't even immigrants.
An immigrant is someone who comes lawfully.
An illegal is someone who jumps the fence, who breaks the law.
And that should be the starting point of any debate on this subject.
I mean, let's think about it. Every country is based on a kind of social compact, a kind of agreement by the citizens who are here with each other.
And these citizens, through a process, and in our case, of course, it's the democratic process, make rules or laws that govern who can come and who can't.
And that is true of any group.
Every club has to make rules for who gets to be a new member.
And we have laws.
The remarkable thing is the Democrats, they could propose, let's change the laws, let's make new laws, let's go through the process and let's just say, vote on open borders if that's what you want.
But they won't do that. They want to achieve the result Unlawfully, by getting around the law, by ducking, you may say, the law.
Now, I've been reading an interesting book on this.
This is by an Indian-American, Sukitu Mehta.
I actually invited him to come on the podcast to talk about immigration and other issues.
The book is called This Land is Our Land.
And it's kind of a, you may almost call it an illegal bill of rights.
Sukitu begins by saying things like, We're here.
We're not going back.
We're raising our kids here.
It's our country now.
Now, some of this is just sort of idle bombast because Sukitu Mehta is a legal immigrant.
He's not illegal. So when he says, we're here, it's kind of like me saying, or Debbie saying, we're here.
Of course we're here. We have a right to be here.
We've gone through the legal process.
We've become naturalized citizens.
It was Abraham Lincoln over a century ago who made the point that when you go through the naturalization process, So, all of this is true.
The real issue is the issue of cutting the line.
I mean, you cannot cut the line at Disneyland.
You cannot cut the line in Black Friday.
You cannot cut the line because there are people who come from faraway countries.
Who wait in a long line to get here.
They can't swim the Rio Grande.
They can't jump a fence.
And so, in a sense, there's a kind of geographical discrimination in allowing the people who are contiguous with the United States to sort of sneak their way in when really no one else can.
The deeper question here, which I'm only going to touch on very briefly, is what kind of immigrants does America want in the first place?
I'm talking here about legal immigrants.
Who are the type of people that we want from other countries?
This question is almost never asked, and I'm just going to advance what I'm going to call D'Souza's Law of Immigration.
Which is, by the way, confirmed by all kinds of sociological studies.
It's a simple idea that the quality of immigrants is directly proportional to the distance traveled to get here.
Now, some people may go, well, Dinesh, that's a racist statement!
It's a racist statement.
Why? Half the time these days when you hear, that's a racist statement, you have to laugh because something really stupid is about to be said.
Well, it's racist in favor of Indians and against Mexicans.
Well, first of all, Indians and Mexicans are the same color.
We're both brown. So there's nothing racist about this at all.
In fact, the point has nothing to do with race.
It basically simply says that when you have to come a long distance, it takes a much greater level of patience, creativity, And so, in general, immigrants that travel a long distance to get to America are going to want to come here more, are going to brave greater hardships, and so on.
The bottom line of it is, we need a rational debate about immigration, one that isn't distorted by rubbish language, undocumented immigrants, or rubbish accusations.
Oh, that's racist!
We need a debate that focuses on, here we are.
We've got a great country.
Lots of people want to come here.
We need to have fair rules that decide who does get to come, who gets to come legally, and what's the process for that.
What kind of people do we want to make this country better and stronger?
That's not the debate that Biden wants.
That's not the debate that the Democrats want.
Their secret question is, how do we get more voters?
Who are going to cast a ballot for us?
Because think about it. If the illegals upon becoming citizens were known, let's just say in advance to vote heavily Republican, the Democrats would build the most giant wall.
In fact, a bigger wall than the one they're building in Washington, D.C. They would militarize the border.
They would make sure that none of those Republican-voting Mexicans set one foot in our country.
Debbie and I love the MyPillow products so much that we have a house full of them, from robes to dog beds to towels to sheets.
Here's my stepdaughter's dog Kodak pictured on his bed.
She says it's the only dog bed that Kodak won't destroy.
Here I am with Debbie modeling our robes.
Made with luxurious Supima cotton, this relaxed, fit-style robe boasts superior comfort and quality.
The extra-long, stable fiber gives the MyPillow bathrobe premium softness, strength, and color retention.
It features front pockets, removable waist tie, and full-length sleeves.
The robes are regularly $109.99, but with promo code Dinesh, They're down to $76.99.
A great deal. So call 800-876-0227 and use promo code Dinesh.
There's a plethora of products there and you'll love all of them as much as we do.
Remember to call 800-876-0227 or just go to MyPillow.com but don't forget to use promo code Dinesh.
Is illegal immigration defensible as a form of reparations that America owes to Mexico and perhaps to other countries as well?
I've been talking about Sakitu Mehta's book, This Land is Our Land, and he explicitly makes this argument.
He says that the immigrants, the illegals, are coming here because we have stolen their countries.
I quote him now, migration today is a form of reparations.
And this notion is not unique with Tsukitu Mehta.
In my movie, America, I interviewed an ethnic studies professor, Charles Trujillo, who makes very much the same point.
Listen. In 1845, Mexican territory covered most of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California.
I like Chicano nationalism.
I really do prefer Hispanic culture to Anglo-Saxon culture.
And you say, well, then why don't you move back to Mexico?
I don't have to.
I'm in Mexico. And like I tell my Chicano students, maybe after there isn't a United States, we'll still be here, like the Indians.
So this is the idea and this is the argument that the United States stole half of Mexico.
And, well, if that was really true, then you could look at illegal immigration as almost a form of inadequate payback.
But let's examine the premise for a moment.
Did the United States actually do that?
Now, Texas As we know, as many of us know, was part of Mexico.
In fact, the Mexicans had invited the Anglos into the region that is now Texas, and they asked them to sort of develop it, to establish ranches and homesteads, which the Anglos did.
Now, this was under the original Mexican constitution, but the problem was that a dictator came to power in Mexico, Santa Ana, oh, Santana, And he began to establish tyrannical rule all over Mexico, so the Texans revolted.
They revolted in 1836.
They declared, we're the Lone Star Republic.
We're out of here. We're out of Mexico.
And for about 10 years, the Texans had an independent republic.
Kind of remarkable because even today the Texans do a pledge to the Texan flag.
It's kind of easy to forget that Texas sort of was an independent country for almost a decade.
And then Texas joined the United States.
Texas applied for and was admitted to after some reluctance and some negotiation, led into the United States.
The Mexican War began over a border dispute with Mexico.
Basically, the Mexicans said the border is right here.
It's the Nueces River. And the Texans said, no, it's the Rio Grande.
In any event, over this border dispute, there was...
The Mexican War.
And the United States Army was in Mexico City.
We could have actually taken pretty much all of Mexico.
But a treaty was signed.
I think the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, the bottom line of it is this is how a large part of territory, Texas, came into the United States.
Now, here's the key point.
The key point is that there were obviously Mexicans or as we say now Latinos or Hispanics on the American side of that border.
They used to be Mexican citizens.
They became American citizens.
Now, who are these people?
Well, they're actually Debbie's ancestors.
Debbie's mom is from the Rio Grande Valley, right on the Mexican border.
So, that was originally Mexico.
It's now the United States.
But here's the point.
All those Latinos and Hispanics who ended up on the American side of the border actually became beneficiaries of American citizenship and American freedom.
I'm not saying that they were free of discrimination, but what I'm saying is that even if they had limited rights in America...
That was preferable to having no rights in Mexico when they would be at the mercy of a tyrannical government and a society in which corruption, even to this day, runs pretty much all the way down.
Here's the bottom line.
The Mexicans who ended up on the American side were clearly better off.
Nothing was stolen from them.
The American government didn't take their ranches or take their land.
In fact, it made them U.S. citizens.
So the argument for reparations The Mexicans fought a war.
There's some argument over who was right and who was wrong, but they lost.
They signed a treaty. They relinquished the territory.
Their war debts were paid off.
There's no reparations owed in that regard.
Even Abraham Lincoln saw this as a war of liberation for Texas, even though he had some doubts about the Mexican War.
Bottom line, reparations is not owed in this case, if indeed it is owed in any case at all.
And this argument of immigration as a form of reparations made by Sokidu Mehta, made also by Charles Trujillo, makes no sense.
Big tech companies don't hesitate to throw conservatives off their platforms.
We can't trust these people one bit.
So why exactly are we choosing to give these big tech companies all of our personal data?
Now is the time to take a stance.
Protect your personal data from big tech with the virtual private network that I trust For my online protection, ExpressVPN.
Every device, whether you're on your phone, laptop, or TV, has a unique string of numbers called an IP address.
When you search for stuff, watch videos, or even click a link, big tech companies can use that IP to track all your activity and tie it back to you.
When I use ExpressVPN, My connection gets rerouted through their secure encrypted servers, so these companies cannot see my IP address at all.
My internet activity becomes anonymized, and my network data is encrypted.
And the best part is you don't need to be tech-savvy to use ExpressVPN.
Just download the app on your phone or computer, tap one button, and you're protected.
Protect your internet activity with the VPN I use every day.
Visit ExpressVPN.com slash Dinesh to get three months free on a one-year package.
That's ExpressVPN.com slash Dinesh to get three extra months free.
ExpressVPN.com slash Dinesh.
I'm really happy to welcome back to the podcast Marjorie Taylor Greene, a newly elected maverick GOP congresswoman who has really stirred the pot.
And not only that, but has sort of used these controversies to catapult to national attention.
She seems to have a particular affinity or ability to drive the left nuts.
which I particularly admire.
Marjorie, welcome to the podcast.
Thanks for coming back.
I want to start because I was really chuckling at a social media post you had where you've got this bar up on the ceiling and you're doing these pull-ups.
And as I was looking at you go up and down, I was thinking about these poor never-Trumpers, you know, because they're such weaklings.
I mean, their idea of a workout is like up, down, up, down, now the other eyebrow, you know.
So I got the feeling that you're a little bit It's tougher than many of your critics.
Is that why you posted the video?
Was it a kind of intimidation move and all the people who are sort of taking you on?
No, I really didn't intend for it to be an intimidation video.
We're here so late.
Nancy Pelosi doesn't seem to understand how to run a calendar.
or a schedule and so we were that night we were here till two o'clock in the morning voting and you know you have to do things to stay engaged and stay awake so yeah I have a pull-up bar in my office that that I like to use I've always been an avid exerciser and crossfitter and and runner and triathlete so Yeah, so we were just messing around, getting in a little bit of exercise while we were staying here so late voting.
Now you're talking about Nancy Pelosi and her incompetent schedules.
There's an article in The Hill by Scott Wong, and he's Marjorie Greene's delay tactics frustrate GOP. And what he seems to be saying is that you've got a lot of time on your hands, and you're using that time to kind of gum up the works and call for all these adjournment votes.
And it's really kind of amusing because...
They quote a GOP, Tim Wahlberg, a Michigan Republican, who claims that you're keeping him up late.
He goes, rather than going to bed at 9.30 tonight, it's going to be 10.30 or 11.30.
So evidently they're accusing you of using the time on your hands to take a little bit of revenge on these people who stripped you of your committee assignments.
Is that your goal?
Or if not, what is your goal?
No, it's not revenge.
I'm outraged at the Democrats' agenda.
They've got this $1.9 trillion blue state bailout that is nothing but a woke progressive nightmare.
Less than 9% actually goes to COVID relief.
We've got gun control bills coming this week.
We had the Equality Act, which ruins and completely destroys women's sports, women's rights, and religious freedoms.
We had the defund the police bill last week, which was just atrocious.
For me, I'm outraged.
I'm a regular person.
I'm not a member of the swamp and have no interest to be.
And we have four procedures that we can use.
Every single member of Congress can use.
So what I did is I called for a motion to adjourn.
And I specifically told the Democrats, I'm making this motion to adjourn so you can have a little more time to think Before you vote for something like HR1 that federalizes our elections, or before you vote to defund the police while you run around and are just happy about your Capitol Police protection from the QAnon invasion.
And so, no, I'm using actual tools that every single member of Congress can and should use because the Republican voters and American people are disgusted at what's happening here.
Yeah, they took me off of my committees, but Republicans are useless on committees and they all talk about it all the time.
They all talk about how their ideas are not heard, their amendments are not added.
It's a complete waste of their time.
They spend hours on Zoom calls on these committee meetings.
And so I made a motion to adjourn because a motion to adjourn actually stops Congress.
And if everyone votes for it, it will stop Congress for the entire day.
It ends everything.
And if anything, right now, with Nancy Pelosi's woke progressive communist agenda, we should be stopping Congress.
We should do everything possible to stop Congress.
But here I had Republicans complaining because they had to get up out of their chair from their desk and walk down to go vote on my motion to adjourn.
And then we have Republicans complaining that their Zoom call got interrupted, where they were probably telling their constituents or their chamber of commerce meeting, or maybe their donors, how they were fighting back and doing everything they can do to stop the radical Democrat agenda.
But yet they're upset with me because they have to actually stop and, oh, go down there and vote for a motion to adjourn.
And so, you know, that article came out and it upset me very much.
And, you know, I'm not here to jump into Washington, D.C.
and do business as usual, because business as usual is burning down our country and ripping our freedoms right out of our hands.
Part of what you seem to be saying is that when really bad things are coming down the pike, there is a moral case for obstructionism.
And there's also a moral case for putting people on the record.
I see that when Cori Bush...
This is the Democratic Congresswoman, Cori Bush, had a bill that would, in effect, allow violent criminals to vote.
You demanded a roll call vote, because many times these sorts of things just get sort of lumped in with a voice vote, and no one knows who voted yes, but you wanted to get people on the record, and the effect of it was successful, because you got 97 Democrats voting yes, but you got 112 voting no.
And the motion was actually pretty decisively defeated.
We had 310 no's and 97 yes's.
That was the total. We had Democrats actually vote against Cori Bush.
And so that me calling for a roll call vote, that's another motion on the floor, asking for a roll call vote, defeated her insane amendment.
to allow felons in prison to vote.
But guess what? Joe Biden signed an executive order just yesterday to do that.
So he even disagrees with the majority of members of Congress.
He agrees with the squad. Joe Biden signed an executive order supporting the squad wanting felons to vote in jail.
But here's the issue, Dinesh.
We should be doing everything we could.
Even though we're in the minority, Republicans should be fighting back with every tool that we have In our playbook, every single way, because what they are doing and what's coming so fast is outrageous.
We shouldn't be sitting here in the House of Representatives with our feet kicked up on our desk saying, oh, let's just leave it to the Senate.
Let's leave it to the Republicans in the Senate to stop it.
No, we should be doing everything we can here to delay, to postpone, to try to stop, try to change, to put every single person on record Which every single member of Congress should vote for every single bill and amendment.
And we should be pushing that messaging out so that when these insane policies and bills go to the Senate, then the Senate Republicans have backup because the people have been talking about it for a week or more.
And it's in the media and the media is talking about it for a week or more.
And so the Senate Republicans have backup to stop these things.
That's what we should be doing.
But evidently, you know, it's Business as usual and Marjorie's the bad guy for making motions to adjourn or calling for roll call votes.
Now, in fairness, it does seem that when it comes to H.R.1 or the Equality Act, that the Republicans have actually been relatively unified.
I mean, with maybe one or two defections, Republicans have hung together as a team in opposition to these bad measures.
Do you think that we have a good chance to take the House next year?
Because, of course, that will bring the whole Biden train to a halt.
What are our chances, do you think, for taking the House and possibly even the Senate?
Well, here's what I'll tell you what those that know tell me.
Republicans and leadership are saying, yes, we're going to take back the House.
They're saying with redistricting, we should have the ability to gain 10 seats just on redistricting alone.
They feel confident that because of this Really extreme, radical, progressive agenda that the Democrats are pushing so hard, Republicans believe that that is going to lead to a big win in 2022.
Now, I'm not so sure, and here's why I tell you.
I believe we won so many seats in the House of Representatives in 2020 because we had Trump on the ticket and because people were so happy with President Trump's America First policies.
And so they showed up and they voted for Trump and they voted for Republicans, you know, down ballot.
And I think that's how we won so many seats.
But if they don't see, if the American people who are upset with 10 Republicans who voted to impeach President Trump, they're upset with 11 Republicans that voted with Democrats to remove me off committees.
They're upset with lazy Republicans that get mad at me because they have to actually get up and go walk the vote.
When Republican voters are saying out loud, we are sick and tired of the Republican establishment.
They want to see fighters.
They want to see Republicans in Congress that take a Trump-like stance and stand up for the people and don't put up with the shenanigans and stop doing business as usual in Washington.
That's what Republican voters want.
And so I don't know what's going to happen in 2022.
I want to take back the House.
I want to see a huge win all the way across the board.
You want to know why? Because then I want to turn this game around and completely stick it to the Democrats.
That's what I want. I'm a competitor.
I love to win. I don't want to see us losing anymore.
I'm not the type that loses gracefully when they're shredding our Constitution and ripping our freedoms away from us.
Marjorie, I appreciate you coming on the podcast.
I think what you're saying is we need the Trump spirit, and I certainly see a good bit of it in you.
So thanks for coming on. I really appreciate it.
Thank you, Dinesh.
I've been telling you for a while now about Birch Gold Group.
I buy my gold from Birch Gold and so should you.
And I'm excited. Birch Gold has just passed a major milestone.
10,000 customers.
That's 10,000 people that have a plan against radical leftist policies driving up our national debt and devaluing our dollar.
If you've been waiting to call Birch Gold to convert an IRA or eligible 401k into an IRA backed by gold and silver, now is the time.
Through April 30th on qualifying purchases, when you purchase precious metals with Birch Gold, they will send you a free home safe.
That's right, a free safe to securely store that gold and silver.
Text Dinesh to 484848 for your free information kit on precious metals IRA or to speak with a Birch Gold representative today.
With 10,000 customers, we have an A-plus rating with the Better Business Bureau, countless 5-star reviews, and they can help you too.
Text Dinesh to 484848 for your free safe with purchase.
Two more women have come forward and accused New York Governor Cuomo of sexual misconduct.
I believe this raises the number to five.
So this is getting a little bit difficult for Cuomo.
He now needs five predator passes from the left in order to let him get away with it.
And these women are becoming increasingly vocal and demanding.
Here's Lindsay Boylan tweeting out just recently,"'Resign, you disgusting monster.'" And nearly 50 New York lawmakers have called on Cuomo to resign.
As I said before, it's a little ironic that all of this is over the Me Too accusations and not over Cuomo's catastrophic decision, which he then tried to cover up, cover up the consequences of, of dispatching coronavirus patients to nursing homes, killing a lot of people in those nursing homes.
I believe some 15,000 people, even though they were trying to disclose only a few thousand.
And hide the real number of deaths that were caused directly by Cuomo's policies.
Now, interestingly, Cuomo here, his power on the coronavirus issue has been limited.
The legislature has actually signed a bill that prevents him from issuing any new directives.
And Cuomo has agreed to succumb to that.
But he won't resign. He says, I'm not going to resign.
It would be undemocratic for me to resign.
What? Well, just because he was originally elected, I guess he means that the people are sort of demanding that he stay, despite all these revelations.
This would be like Nixon saying, oh, no, no, no, I'm not going to resign.
I was originally elected in 1968 and again in 72.
Why should I succumb even though there was Watergate and so on?
So this is Cuomo.
And I've been taking a look at some passages from his book, which, by the way, came out late last year, an embarrassingly self-congratulatory work in which Cuomo basically tries to take all his...
He talks about some of his qualities that are confirmed by these accusations, by the way.
He says things like, I'm a controlling personality.
But then, of course, in typical politician mode, every negative quality is transmuted into a positive.
And so he says things like...
You show me a person who's not controlling, and I'll show you a person who's probably not successful.
In other words, you have to be controlling in order to get things done.
And he goes on like this when he says, I'm volatile, but that only means it's emotional.
I'm volatile because I care.
So essentially, at the end of the book, you go, yeah, you're a controlling, volatile, mean-spirited guy, but according to you, it's just that you work extremely hard and just care far too much.
Now, interestingly, in the Me Too accusations, Cuomo's defense is really strange.
He basically goes, I understand that sensitivities have changed and behavior has changed.
I get it. I'm going to learn from it.
And you get the idea when you listen to this that Cuomo is like 90 years old.
All of this may have happened 40 years ago.
He's a product of a different era.
Morality has changed.
So, you know, he's shifting the focus off the actual misconduct.
What did he actually do?
And he's essentially attributing it to a different question.
Has the world changed since it was?
Is the world not the way it used to be?
Now, we need a little bit of a reality check in order to realize that, wait a minute, when were these accusations really?
1976? 1964?
No. The alleged kiss from Boylan, unwanted, was 2018.
The photo of Rook, her face in the governor's hands, 2019.
The alleged questioning about her sex life, this is the accuser, Bennett, It took place in June of 2020.
Now, the reason that Cuomo is able to get away, at least so far, with being such a snake is the sycophantic treatment of him in the media.
The media is sort of his accessory and enabler, kind of in the same way that Hillary was Bill's enabler.
And I'll close out this segment with a just truly disgusting, almost as disgusting as Cuomo itself, salivating interview with Cuomo, which kind of gives you an idea of why these disclosures never came to light before, because the media was shamelessly sucking up to this guy.
Listen. In one word, can you describe the past 100 days?
Hell, can I say that?
Yeah, you can. I think that's there.
What still keeps you up at night?
You've been commended for your clear and your calm leadership.
People from all over the country and the world have tuned into your press conferences.
Your statewide approval rating, a career-high 84%.
You came in second only to President Obama as the most trusted Democratic leader in America.
How do you intend on spending that political capital that you've earned?
If you had to give President Trump a grade on how he's handled this pandemic, what would you give him?
What grade would you give yourself?
You've said that you have no political aspirations beyond the job you're in right now.
Right. A lot of people are asking why?
Why not think about something grander, bigger, presidential?
Would you accept a cabinet position in a Biden administration?
That was a quick no.
Nope. Why not?
I know that you've been portrayed as some sort of a homecoming king.
Oh my gosh, I don't think I can even take any more of this.
I think I'm gonna have to go with Lindsay Boylan on Cuomo.
Resign, you disgusting monster.
Sleep is one of my favorite activities.
Maybe not my absolute favorite, but one of my favorites.
And I sleep better when I have the right pillow, the right sheets, and the right pajamas.
Check me out here. I'm in Mike Lindell's pajamas.
Well, I'm not exactly in his pajamas.
My pajamas, which I ordered from Mike Lindell's MyPillow.
I love the pajamas and they go very well with Mike's Giza Dream Sheets.
The team at MyPillow is very grateful for you.
So grateful they have an amazing offer.
Buy one, get one free on the incredible sheet sets.
Mike Lindell has come out with the world's most comfortable bed sheets.
He found the best cotton in the world in a region where the Sahara Desert, the Nile River, and the Mediterranean Sea all come together to create the ideal weather conditions for growing cotton.
His new Giza Dream bed sheets are made with this long staple cotton, and he guarantees they will be the most comfortable sheets you'll ever own.
The first night you sleep on the sheets, We're good to go.
Including the pajama set, call 800-876-0227 or just go to MyPillow.com.
Don't forget to use promo code Dinesh.
It's always an interesting experience to watch Jen Psaki, the press secretary, engage with the media because with one or two exceptions, it's kind of a love fest.
She's basically there and she knows that they are on her side and what a difference in the level of tension.
In fact, there is virtually none than what we saw before with the press room in the Trump administration.
And with Jen Psaki, she's able to utter the most glib falsehoods in the confident knowledge that she won't, in general, be challenged.
Here is a classic example from just recently.
Listen. Just one question on vaccines.
You know, the president has been pretty critical of the prior administration's handling of this pandemic, saying you inherited a mess here.
But when it comes to vaccinations, you aren't following some of the same playbook here.
So does the prior administration deserve some credit for laying the groundwork?
Which ones are we following?
Well, for instance, former...
Trump HHS Assistant Secretary Admiral Brett Giroir has said that you're following 99% of the playbook they created on vaccines.
He has said that the prior administration deserves more credit here for at least getting the ball rolling off some of these.
I don't think anyone deserves credit when half a million people in the country have died of this pandemic.
So, wow, I take her to be making two points.
One is that Biden, not Trump, is responsible for the vaccine.
And two, that Trump is to blame for 500,000 deaths.
Now, who was the guy who actually accelerated the development of the vaccine?
Who was the one who established the Operation Warp Speed?
Who was the one who provided the support and funding for Pfizer and Moderna and all these companies, Johnson& Johnson?
Well, the answer is it was Trump.
In fact, they repaid him, these companies did, by suppressing the disclosure of the vaccine.
Apparently, they had the vaccine even earlier, but they didn't want to say it.
Why? Because it might help Trump win the election.
But the vaccine was clearly developed under Trump before the election, and even if the knowledge of it was hidden until immediately after the election.
Biden got his vaccine before the inauguration, thus making it impossible that he could have been the cause of the vaccine.
Now, with regard to debts, it seems churlish or unfair, to put it mildly, to blame a president for the havoc that has been wreaked by a virus.
But if you're going to do it, you've got to be fair about it.
So, let's take the average death count per day during the Trump administration, or from the beginning of the virus till Trump left office, And then let's attribute the deaths that occurred under Biden to Biden, because those would be, by the same logic, his deaths.
But evidently, this is not something Jen Psaki wants to do.
She actually wants to create a kind of transposition.
All the deaths, even the ones that occur under Biden, are blamed on Trump.
And the vaccine, even though produced by Trump and under Trump, is now attributed to Biden.
This is called turning logic on its head, and the most striking fact is that she can utter these glib falsehoods in the knowledge, in the serene knowledge, that no one will challenge her.
Want to recommend an organization to you, American Truth Project.
ATP is a non-profit organization established because America's national security is being threatened as never before.
ATP's educational material and digital activism tackles five major issues, all of which threaten our country and its sacred Judeo-Christian roots.
I support ATP and hope you will sign up for their free content.
Text DDS to 88202.
Barry Nussbaum, the founder of ATP, just released a book, Because You Asked, which is a collection of essays on why conservatism and the Trump Doctrine were and still are right for America.
Text DDS to 88202 or go to americantruthproject.org.
If you sign up for the newsletter, you'll get the first three chapters of the book for free.
I highly recommend the book, which is available also on Amazon.
Text DDS to 88202 and help get the word out about ATP. The trials of some of the defendants in the January 6th events are coming up.
Coming up in the next couple of months.
The way things are shaping up, we're in for some show trials and a lot of injustice and a lot of broken lives and broken families.
And this is actually the intent of the government and the Department of Justice.
Now, justice is really ultimately about proportionality.
It isn't just about what you did.
It is about providing a penalty that matches the crime.
Think, for example, about the guys who did 9-11.
Think about Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.
Where is he? Was he executed years ago?
No. He's still alive.
He's around. He just has a long prison term.
Obviously, any interrogation value that he could have had is long past.
But there he is, sitting around.
And that's for what he did, organizing 9-11.
Now, interestingly...
The defendants of January 6th are being treated like they are Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.
And the government is going for long prison terms and very serious charges.
But what is it that these guys did?
I now want to focus on one of them that is supposedly one of the worst offenders.
It's this kid, Bruno Joseph Kua.
He's 18 years old.
He doesn't do drugs or alcohol.
He's actually finishing online classes to get his high school diploma.
Now, he is a big social media loudmouth, and he is somebody who talks trash, if you will.
And he was in the Capitol on January 6th, and he did get into the Capitol.
And afterwards, he boasted that, quote, we stormed the Capitol, and he said, we physically fought our way in.
Now this guy, 18 years old, is sitting in jail, and he's charged with 12 counts, including assaulting a police officer, possessing a, quote, dangerous or deadly weapon.
He can't get bail.
His family is not allowed to post bail.
And his trial is scheduled for early May, which means he's going to be locked up, in effect, from January through May.
And they say that he's a danger to the community.
Why? Because he has made social media posts denying the legitimacy of the election.
So apparently because he questions whether Joe Biden was legitimately elected, he can't be trusted to respect any laws and therefore he's got to be kept locked up.
And the judge, an Obama judge, seems to be sympathetic to this argument.
Now, here's the question.
What exactly did this fellow do in the Capitol?
He got in there.
He climbed on the scaffolding outside the Capitol building.
He went into areas he shouldn't have gone.
And then he boasted about it.
Did he have a gun? No.
Did he have a knife? No.
Apparently he had some sort of a baton that he carried with him.
This is the quote deadly weapon.
But there's no evidence he even used it on anyone.
So, So, the FBI keeps claiming that he, quote, shoved a police officer in the hallway, but the officer himself can't recall who the person who shoved him was or what he even looked like.
Bruno's lawyers have said he's not alleged to have participated in the violent breach of police lines, breaking windows, or otherwise forcefully entering the Capitol.
He's not accused of using the baton or engaging in any other physical violence, property damage, or theft.
So, basically what's going on here is the government is trying to make an example out of this kid.
They're trying to terrify him, they're trying to ruin his life, and they probably will.
And the life of his family.
Here's what his mother says, which I find very poignant.
Since he has been arrested, everything has changed for us.
A tearful Elise Kua told Judge Moss, We just want our family together.
I don't even want to hear the word politics.
Bruno feels the same way, quote, we are completely broken.
And what I find especially terrifying is that this is, I believe, what the government, what the DOJ, and what the left wants.
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 whole 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.
Coupon only available for one gallon purchase.
Genesis 950. It's much cheaper than replacing your carpets.
Is faith...
Is religious faith reasonable?
Is it reasonable to take things on faith?
Now, religious believers, of course, all over the world believe in God, but as Christians, we believe in more than just God or God the Father.
We also believe in Jesus.
Jesus died for our sins.
We believe in the redemptive power of Christ's suffering.
We believe we will be united with God and Christ in heaven.
So, these are beliefs that Christians hold on faith.
Now, the atheists, and I'm thinking here now of Richard Dawkins, the biologist at Oxford, probably now the world's leading living atheist after the passing of Christopher Hitchens.
Dawkins, in one of his early books, and a very good book, by the way, called The Selfish Gene, a book I actually recommend to you, It's a scandalously brilliant book in many ways, but toward the end of it, somewhat gratuitously, Dawkins sort of takes a swipe at religious faith, which he contrasts with evidence.
And Dawkins uses, as an example of the unscientific way of thinking, an incident in the gospel involving The apostle that we now call Doubting Thomas.
So the other apostles had seen Jesus and they told Thomas, we have seen the Lord.
And Thomas goes, really?
No, I don't believe it.
I will only believe it when I see Jesus myself and I touch him and I put my fingers in his wounds.
And then Jesus does show up and he does allow Thomas to do that and Thomas then believes.
But then Jesus says something very interesting.
He goes, you, Thomas, you know, you have seen and touched and therefore believed.
And then here's the key line, blessed are those who have not yet seen and still believed.
Dawkins goes, there you go.
That's the unscientific attitude.
Blessed are those who have not seen and still believed.
And for Dawkins, Thomas is actually the model of the scientist.
Why? Because Thomas doesn't take things on faith.
Thomas demands evidence.
Thomas wants to sort of see for himself and...
And therefore, Doubting Thomas represents the scientific attitude and Christ himself and all the other apostles represent, you may say, the faith community where you believe all kinds of stuff even though you don't have evidence.
Now, first of all, I want to dive into this biblical incident a little bit more because the other apostles saw Jesus.
They didn't believe that Jesus came back on faith.
They saw him. So they had the same evidence as Thomas.
In fact, they told Thomas.
We've seen him. And Thomas knew these were his friends.
He could rely on their judgment.
It's kind of like if Debbie comes home and says, Oh, you know, I saw a neighbor in the driveway.
I'd be like, Really?
Wow. And since I trust Debbie, I would have no reason to doubt what she's saying.
So there's no suspension here of evidence.
Evidence includes reliable testimony that testifies to something you've seen.
Even in court, I saw the guy do it.
There he was.
And so the jury is able to take into account credible witnesses and give importance to their testimony.
Now... Dawkins makes it seem like in science, we don't rely on testimony.
We rely on what we can see with the naked eye.
We rely ultimately on what our senses show us.
Like Thomas, we want to see, we want to touch.
And I want to show that in the history of science, this is actually a nonsensical statement.
The greatest achievements of modern science involve things that you cannot see and that you cannot touch.
In fact, very interestingly, Aristotle had made the argument that the natural position of an object is to be at rest, to stay in one place, not to move.
And the reason Aristotle said that is because that's how you see it.
That's how you feel it.
An object that is being undisturbed stays put.
And it was Galileo and the modern scientists who argued that no, the natural position of an object is to move in a straight line at constant speed.
Now, this is contrary to sensory evidence, but the idea here is that other forces, like friction and gravity, cause objects to stay put.
Gravity pulls them to the ground.
If there wasn't gravity, yes, they would fly off and they would move in a straight line at constant speed.
When Galileo, by the way, made his case for heliocentrism, for the sun being at the center of our solar system, Galileo admitted That observation and human experience was the opposite.
He goes, human experience puts the earth at the center.
Human experience says that the sun moves, not the earth.
But Galileo argued that we should set aside observational evidence and use other types of evidence, logical evidence, other types of inferences that contradict, you may say, observational reason.
So the bottom line I'm trying to make is that this Distinction between observation being the scientific attitude and faith being unscientific, this is based on a certain kind of a fallacy.
The bottom line of it is, as humans, we use many different ways to come to conclusions.
We use observation.
We use reliable testimony.
We use scientific experiments.
And when we have exhausted the reach of reason, we sometimes have to rely on faith.
Another word in science is conjecture, hypothesis, hypothesis that may then be open to experiential observation or testing.
And ultimately, at the end of the day, our belief is based upon that complex mix of factors.
It isn't a matter of just faith or reason.
Sometimes our conclusions require a mix of both.
Do you ever feel the urge to push back against the leftist media narrative of cops being your enemy?
If you support our American law enforcement, I want to share with you a very special and stylish new way to show that you have the back of the police.
Eggert Watch's CEO Elon is an unapologetic supporter of police and is taking a very strong stance against this defund the police movement.
He designed a commemorative police watch that is beautiful.
I notice all kinds of special details like the engraving and the quote on the back.
Elon shared with me that in consulting with officers on the watch design, they asked for an image of St.
Michael on the piece. Eggert Watches gives away 15% of all sales from this model to police charities.
If you haven't seen Elon's Speak Truth short film on this topic, it's a must-watch, and you can find it on the Eggert website.
Remember to apply this podcast's unique promo code Dinesh to your police watch order so you can save over $30 at the checkout.
Visit eggertwatches.com to make your order.
It's time we support companies that stand up for what we believe in, and Eggert is a company I'm proud to recommend.
It's time for our mailbox, and we have a question, in fact a very smart question, so smart that it made Debbie and me chuckle.
Listen. Hi, Dinesh.
My name is Caitlin. I am 14 years old, and my younger sister and I have really enjoyed your podcast.
Thanks for all the time and work you put into it.
I've been wondering about this for a long time, and my family has had multiple discussions about it, so could you explain exactly what fascism is?
My sister, who knows more about politics and economics than I do, says it is a form of government that does whatever appears necessary, but that doesn't seem to make sense.
Doesn't every government leader do whatever appears necessary?
Also, I believe Antifa is short for anti-fascist, so what is it about fascism that Antifa disagrees with?
Thanks again for your time.
Wow. My favorite part of the question is, yes, I'm 14 and I'm asking you all these questions, but my younger daughter, who really knows what's going on, who's 12, I believe.
Unbelievable. You kids are really smart, and I wouldn't normally do this, but I will recommend to you...
The Big Lie, which is a book by one Dinesh D'Souza, and it really goes into all this in depth.
I'm going to give you just a small nugget from that book that addresses your question about fascism and so-called anti-fascism.
The remarkable thing is you'll discover that these two phrases, at least in their true meaning, are the same.
The same. Mussolini, who was the real founder of fascism, we usually associate fascism with Hitler, but Hitler was more of a Nazi or National Socialist.
And you can think of National Socialism or Nazism as fascism plus anti-Semitism and racism.
Hitler brought in the anti-Semitic and racist component.
But that wasn't there in original fascism.
So here's Mussolini defining fascism in one sentence.
This is about as accurate a definition as you can get.
Everything in the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.
So, right there. Everything in the state means the state ultimately controls everything.
You can have a private sector, but the private sector will be at the behest of the state.
The state will regulate it and direct it.
Nothing outside the state.
Nothing is outside the reach of state power.
So, this is totalitarian in the true sense.
It's total control.
And third, nothing against the state.
No dissent is tolerated against the state.
Now, Mussolini's platform, this came out of the, it was called the Fasci di Combattimento in Milan, released 1919.
Very early fascism. Here's the program.
Universal suffrage.
Abolish the elitist senate Mandate an 8-hour workday A massive public works program Worker participation in industrial management Nationalization of industry Old age and sickness insurance for all citizens State confiscation of uncultivated land Steeply progressive taxation And state control of education That's the fascist agenda.
As you can see, it's thoroughly left-wing.
And it's exactly the agenda of Antifa.
This sounds like Antifa 100 years ago.
So Antifa, far from being anti-fascist, actually embraces the fascist agenda and, as we know, embraces fascist tactics, which is to say that if you look at the fascist brown shirts, well, the brown shirts under Hitler or the black shirts under Mussolini, The Antifa types look like them, dress like them, carry the same types of weapons, use the same street fighting techniques.
The bottom line is Antifa is the fascism, the fa of the 21st century.
Subscribe to the Dinesh D'Souza podcast on Apple, Google, and Spotify.
▲
Export Selection