All Episodes
Previous Next
March 10, 2021 - Dinesh D'Souza
58:16
NOPE TO THE POPE Dinesh D’Souza Podcast Ep43
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Is the left ready to put Biden out to pasture?
The Democratic Party's long history of voter fraud.
And Meghan Markle goes full Jussie Smollett.
This is the Dinesh D'Souza Podcast.
Hope you're enjoying the podcast.
Please hit the subscribe button and also the notifications button if you're listening on Apple.
Please rate me five stars and share the podcast with other people you know.
I'd 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.
Is Joe Biden ready to be put out to pasture?
Kind of like an old horse or...
Well, I think he's been ready.
To be honest, he was ready before the election.
And the Democrats and the left knew that.
I'm not sure if the American people knew that, although I do think that no Americans voted for Biden.
Now, when I say that, what I mean is I think that the election was all about Trump.
People voted for Trump.
People voted against Trump.
I don't even think Jill Biden voted for Biden.
But we have Biden.
We're stuck with Biden. And yet we have a president who appears to be, well, not all there.
I mean, not all there in a quite literal sense.
Presidents typically give a State of the Union.
Here we are, well into March, no State of the Union.
No even clear sign of a state of the union.
Presidents typically give press conferences, whether you have a barrage of questions.
Biden hasn't given one yet.
They say he might give one by the end of the month.
Occasionally he takes a question or two.
Recently he spoke at a small business in DC, but the moment people began to ask him questions, the handlers kind of, you can see them moving in, blocking the questions.
Biden has done a few calls with world leaders, but even then it looks like Kamala Harris is stepping in and taking over that responsibility.
And let's think of how unusual that is.
In America, the vice president is not really the sort of assistant president or the deputy president.
The vice president has a completely different role.
And yet here's Kamala Harris and she's calling Emmanuel Macron and she's calling Trudeau.
And she's in a sense filling in for the guy who sort of isn't there.
Now...
All of this is very troubling, but what is even more troubling is the kind of open acknowledgement on the part of the left, people like Nancy Pelosi, that Biden is a puppet.
Here's a short clip of Nancy Pelosi, a very revealing one, that shows a lot about her view of Biden, and it shows a little bit about her.
Listen. In order to open these doors, we do not say open Sesame.
We say open Biden.
That's our magic word.
Open Biden.
I love it. Wow.
Now, I mean, I take this to mean that Nancy is saying that there's a kind of automatic door opener.
Biden is literally not doing anything.
They're using him.
They're manipulating him.
Now, if you listen to her in that little cackle, I mean, she's half crazy.
So you basically have a president who's not all there, and you've got a Speaker of the House who appears to be a little whacked.
And this is a disturbing situation.
Now, it's not just disturbing for the facts that I've laid out so far.
It's also disturbing because there's a little problem here with the idea of democracy itself.
We keep hearing about democracy.
We need to have more democracy.
We need to perfect our democracy.
We need laws that make us more democratic and so on.
Well, the bottom line of it is the core meaning of democracy is that the people elect a president and he directs things.
And that's not happening.
Now, you might say, well, of course we have aides who advise Biden and it's the job of the president to hire his own staff and so on.
Yes, but the key thing here is that the president makes the decisions.
He directs the aides as opposed to the aides directing him.
If the aides are the ones calling the shots, and Biden is the one, in a sense, carrying out the instructions, we don't have a functioning democracy.
We didn't elect those guys.
We elected Biden to make these decisions.
That's the meaning of representative democracy.
So the bottom line of it is, with Biden, we have, in his very absenteeism, a serious threat to democracy.
And yet, this is not being talked about.
It's not being discussed. In fact, it seems to have gone completely unnoticed.
Here's the Dinesh D'Souza challenge to have a house with as many MyPillow products as Debbie and I do.
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 looking very contented.
She says it's the only dog bed that Kodak will not destroy.
Here I am with Debbie modeling our MyPillow robes.
Made with luxurious Supima cotton, this relaxed-fit style robe boasts superior comfort and quality.
The extra-long staple fiber gives the pillow bathrobe premium softness, strength, and color retention.
Features front pockets, removable waist tie, and full-length sleeves.
The robes are regularly $109.
But with promo code Dinesh, they're down to 7699.
So call 800-876-0227 and use promo code Dinesh.
You'll love them as much as we do.
Remember, call 800-876-0227 or just go to MyPillow.com.
Don't forget to use promo code Dinesh.
Nancy Pelosi's dream legislation, HR1, this is the legislation to sort of overhaul the whole voting process, really to make it favorable to Democrats, to create a sort of one-party system.
This is now making its way to the Senate.
It's going to have a much harder time in the Senate.
It passed very narrowly in the House.
The odds are against it passing in the Senate.
But nevertheless, it has to be taken seriously.
The Democrats do have a narrow Senate majority.
And this is very important to Pelosi and to the left.
Now, they claim that they're doing this to really advance democracy.
But let's remember that democracy is a term that is very often abused.
In fact, it's abused all over the world.
It's been abused ever since it became a kind of moral norm for modern society.
Think, for example, under the Soviet regime of the German Democratic Republic, the GDR. Now, they didn't have a democracy.
They had kind of fake elections, but they called themselves democratic.
Iran calls itself democratic.
They have elections, but the elections are show elections.
They're not real elections.
One party always gets like 98% of the vote.
It's kind of a done deal in advance, and the mullahs retain all the power.
Venezuela has elections, but they're rigged elections.
So the fact of elections, the invocation of the word democracy, doesn't mean you actually have democracy.
Two key elements of H.R. 1 deserve to be emphasized.
One is the focus on the vote counting procedures in the cities.
That's one thing the Democrats are emphasizing.
The need to have sort of a federal system to guarantee democratic control of the vote in the cities.
And the second aspect is there's a lot of talk about race.
In this so-called reform bill.
And what I want to point out is that historically the Democrats have always recognized that race, the issue of race, and the cities are key to creating their own permanent majority.
If we look at the history of the United States, there are two eras that we should focus on.
One is the era of the big city bosses and Tammany Hall.
That was the era of the Democrats rigging the vote in the cities.
And then separately, the era after Reconstruction, particularly in the American South, when the Democrats used the race issue.
They're using it a little differently now, but in both cases, they emphasize racial identity and racial politics to give them a certain type of a decisive advantage.
And that's how the Democrats controlled the South for almost 70 years.
So let's talk for a moment about Tammany Hall.
We think of Tammany Hall in terms of, you know, boss tweed and all these bosses accumulating wealth and handing out patronage, but how did they achieve this patronage?
What was in it for them?
What was in it for them is that they were able to rig the vote.
That was key.
The Democratic machines, and here we have boss tweed, of course, in Tammany Hall, but there was Charles Murray and Richard Croker in Brooklyn.
We had Uncle John McCooey in Kansas City.
We had Frank Hague and Tom Pendergast in Boston.
We had James Michael Curley and John Fitzgerald, all Democrats.
And they mastered a system of vote rigging that is very, very telling.
Basically what they did is they told these immigrants, they didn't just tell them how to vote, they would say, you show up, and they supplied the immigrants with already filled in ballots.
And the immigrants would just show up at the voting booth.
And when the supervisor wasn't looking, they would substitute the filled-in ballot for the empty ballot that they were handed.
And then later the Democrats got even more creative with these big city machines.
They would deliver dead people's votes. In fact, immigrants were known.
They would be told to show up multiple times to vote.
Sometimes they'd be voting using the names of characters in novels or dead relatives or dead people listed on tombstones in local cemeteries.
The point I want to make is that all these schemes were invented in the middle of the 19th century.
They're not new. It's not as if they thought about them now.
They've been perfecting these arts for a long time.
And then turning to race, when we think about groups like the Ku Klux Klan, and again we think about lynchings and we think about the Klan riding and terrorizing people, but terrorizing them for what purpose? To do what?
Basically the goal here was to terrorize black people so that they wouldn't vote.
So voter intimidation was, in a sense, I wouldn't say invented by the Democratic Party, but perfected by the Democratic Party.
The Klan conducted a reign of terror, and here is the progressive scholar, Eric Foner, saying of the Ku Klux Klan, quote,"...the Klan was a military force serving the interest, the voting interest." of the Democratic Party.
So the bottom line of it is the Democrats have long known that there's a distinction between campaigning And elections.
Republicans focus a lot on the campaign.
Let's have a really good campaign so the election will come out alright.
For the Democrats, it's twofold.
Let's have a campaign. Let's try to fix the campaign.
Let's try to organize the campaign.
But let's not forget that if we want to be assured of winning, we also have to fix.
We also have to organize.
We also have to orchestrate the election itself.
I don't trust the mafia and neither do I trust the scoundrels who run big tech and neither should you.
The fact is the internet never forgets.
There's never been a more important time to protect your internet activity and that's why I urge you to get ExpressVPN.
Everything you search for, watch or click online, can be tracked by big tech companies.
They can then match your activity to your true identity using your device's unique IP address.
When I switch on ExpressVPN with my computer or phone, my IP address is masked by a secure VPN server, which makes it harder for websites to identify me.
The ExpressVPN app also encrypts my network data to protect my sensitive information from being compromised.
You can use ExpressVPN on up to 5 devices simultaneously so multiple users on your network can stay safe with a single subscription.
What I like most is how easy it is to use.
It just takes one click to protect all your devices.
That's why they're rated the number one virtual private network by CNET. To get three months free, go to expressvpn.com slash Dinesh.
I wouldn't normally cover the latest sort of dust-up going on within the royal family, but there's a sort of racial politics underlying the clash between Meghan Markle and Prince Harry on the one hand, and the palace and the queen on the other.
As I watch this bizarre spectacle unfold with Oprah gravely adjudicating and mediating the whole thing, it's part of this really strange phenomenon.
I'm supposed to feel sorry for people like Meghan Markle and LeBron James and Serena Williams.
These are people, by the way, who make Hundreds of millions of dollars.
They live in palaces.
They're surrounded by a retinue of adoring journalists and attendants.
These are some of the most privileged people on the planet.
And yet, they claim victimization.
Oh, our lives are so hard.
We were on the edge of suicide.
And they literally want, you know, plumbers and truck drivers and ordinary people to go, Oh, what a horrible life you have.
You know, I'm an exploiter and you're a victim.
I mean, this is just a farce.
And I think the whole world sees it as a farce.
And one reason there's been such a disparate reaction between the world and America to this particular episode is really because of the so-called one-drop rule.
In other words, the rest of the world looks at little Archie and they see a white kid.
Why? Because his mom is half-white, his dad is completely white, and so the kid, as far as they can see, is white.
But here's Meghan Markle.
Oh, we have a dark child and there's a lot of concern about the child's darkness.
So in America, and only in America, we live under this haunting legacy of the one drop.
One drop of black blood makes you black.
And that's why we are reacting one way and the rest of the world is like black.
We really don't see it.
Now, I wanted to bring on my daughter, Danielle D'Souza Gill, because she's been watching this.
She's watched the interview carefully.
She's been following the story.
I think she has a kind of a unique take on this that blows the whistle on what's really going on.
So, Danielle, welcome to the show.
Thanks for coming on, as always.
What is going on here with Meghan Markle?
What is the Meghan Markle story?
Because I smell a rat.
But it's difficult for me to know where the rat actually is.
Yeah, Meghan and Harry did a long one hour to two hour long plus interview with Oprah that was seen by 17 million people.
So a lot of people around the world have been watching it.
And basically, Meghan makes all kinds of things about mental health, about racism, about just not feeling included in the family, all these things.
But I think it was just kind of interesting because so many people on the left just take her claims on face value and assume that There is all of this racism against them, whereas the Queen, I think, released a statement saying that the whole family is saddened to learn the full context of how challenging the last few years have been for Harry and Meghan.
The issues raised, particularly that of race, are concerning.
While some recollections may vary, they are taken very seriously and will be addressed by the family privately.
Harry, Meghan, and Archie will always be loved family members.
And a lot of people on the left read that as, oh, you know, that's really going to do it.
That's really going to fix the entrenched racism of the system.
This is such a horrible answer.
Well, it's a statement out of the 19th century.
I mean, this is the aristocratic sensibility of sort of trying to handle something diplomatically.
See, to me, the natural reaction of the Queen should be outrage.
Think about it. Think of the level of betrayal by her own son, this man in a dress, if you want to call it, kowtowing to his wife who has her hand strategically placed over his, almost as if to say, I'm riding the horse, not you. And the Queen observing this disgusting spectacle of these two people, you know, betraying the royal household in this way, in this crass way.
But I think they don't know how to do this.
They don't know how to respond to sort of woke culture, if you will.
Now, to me, more interesting than the Queen was Meghan Markle's half-sister.
In her statement, did you read this statement?
This is the statement.
I think her name is Samantha Markle.
And it's very eye-opening because she basically says that Meghan Markle suffers from narcissistic personality disorder.
Is that kind of your reading of Meghan Markle?
Yeah, well, she says here in her statement, Samantha Markle says...
She idolized Diana.
In fact, Meghan went to great lengths to study Diana, to mimic her clothing, to mimic her body language, and to wear Diana's perfume on their first date.
Don't tell me my sister didn't know who Harry was.
Because one of Meghan's claims was that she never googled the royal family.
She never googled Harry. She didn't know who they were.
And so she just kind of found herself with royals.
And so her sister was challenging that claim.
And I don't know how anyone could not have I googled one of the most famous royal families.
Well, now, Meghan Markle, let's back up.
Meghan Markle's story is that she was a kind of a two-bit aspiring actress.
She had played some modest roles in a couple of movies.
She was kind of a nobody, right?
I'm guessing that when she married into the royal family, she thought, I'm now going to be it.
I'm now going to be, you know, the new Lady Diana because that's who I've always aspired to be.
And then perhaps she found out that that was not the case.
What do you think caused Meghan Markle to sort of turn against the royal family and make a kind of different move to achieve the kind of fame that it seems she's always aspired to?
Yeah, well, there was so much fanfare surrounding Meghan Markle with her wedding with Harry and all of that.
So I think she did see that she was the center of attention.
But then realize that she will always be number two because William and Kate will always be number one.
She didn't marry William.
She married Harry. And that's just the way the royal system hierarchy works.
So she would always be standing behind William and Kate and so on.
And I think that that didn't work for her.
So she said, you know what?
This isn't fun.
Let's instead go get Netflix deals and Spotify deals and make a lot of money.
And let's still use kind of the royal brand of the Duchess of Sussex brand and use that to kind of get money.
But then the royal family said, okay, well, if you don't want your title, then you're not going to get the security.
If you don't want to perform these acts of public service, then you can go on your own and make your own money.
And I think that they have millions of dollars from Diana anyways.
So they are still living in a mansion in California.
But then they decide, you know what, let's complain about this.
Let's go on I want to play a short clip of Meghan Markle comparing herself to Ariel, the Little Mermaid. Listen.
And The Little Mermaid came on.
Now, who is an adult really watches The Little Mermaid?
But it came on, and I was like, well, I'm just here all the time, so maybe as well watch this.
And I went, oh my God.
She falls in love with the prince, and because of that, she has to lose her voice.
But by the end, she gets her voice back.
Gets her voice back. And this is what happened here.
You feel like you got your voice back.
So it seems that the British people's take on this, which I think would be the global take, is that, listen, Meghan Markle, you signed up for a role in the royal family.
And to then complain that somehow you don't have your own voice.
Nothing's stopping you from having your own voice.
You had your own voice before.
You can have it now.
But you can't have it as part of the royal household because the royal...
The royal family has a certain set of ceremonial duties and you're part of that.
Let's turn for a minute to Harry's role in all this because I think you mentioned to me that you thought that Harry seemed extremely awkward or maybe uncomfortable during the interview.
Talk about Harry a little bit because I then want to also turn to Samantha Markle's take on Harry, which I think is pretty crushing.
Yeah, I think it's a really sad situation.
I mean, Harry grew up with his family there.
That was the life that he knew.
And now he somehow thinks that his father and his brother are prisoners there.
He thinks that they're trapped and kind of acted like they lived in some cult that he somehow escaped from.
I think Oprah even asked him, you know, do you think that Meghan Markle saved you?
And he says, yeah, I think she did.
And it's really kind of, I guess, allowed her to have this hold on him.
And I do think it's sad when someone...
Tears someone away from everything they knew.
He had to give up his, I think, titles and all of his military stuff.
But just the loss of relationship there with the family is really sad, especially how it's going on in this public way of trashing the family and saying these allegations of racism without actually saying who said it or being specific.
So now the public just says, oh, well, everybody must be racist then.
Well, everything is horrible.
And it's like you aren't even saying who it was.
I mean, speaking of stories inside the family, listen to this crushing statement by Samantha Marco.
She goes, I feel sorry for Harry.
She pulled him away from his family.
That's what you said. All of his friends, the life that he knew.
And then this. He reminds me of one of those kidnap victims who eventually starts to believe that their life was so horrible and they're in love with their captor.
So he's basically saying that Harry is suffering from Stockholm Syndrome.
This horrific creature, Megan, has sort of imprisoned him mentally.
And he is essentially turned into a human vegetable who is now mouthing her story, even though in a deep down, he knows it to be false.
I mean, what kind of a weak, sick individual?
I mean, these are obviously two very disturbed individuals, right?
Yeah, I mean, I think he shares the blame too.
I think he would dress up as a Nazi or something at parties and so on.
So he shouldn't have this kind of immunity with the left that he has now just because he's with Meghan Markle and just because they're crying racism.
But I think that he has been taken in by her and they live their own life now elsewhere.
So I hope that they kind of just drift into obscurity because there's really no reason that people should be Should be following them or what they're doing.
But as long as they keep up this kind of tussle with the Royals, as long as they keep themselves connected, even negatively to the Royals, I guess they'll always be in the press.
I mean, I don't feel sorry for the royals because the royals are on the left.
I mean, Prince Charles is always making some preposterous statement about climate change.
So it's almost like the royals thought that if we are on the left, we'll be protected from this kind of woke attack.
And sort of the genius marketing move, I think, of Meghan Markle was to figure out, no, I have to attack them, but I have to attack them from the left.
And so by attacking them from the left, they will then be reduced to kind of blubbering denial.
And then the kind of woke culture will get behind me, and that will keep me relevant.
So this was, in a sense, a very cunning move.
It's a Jussie Smollett move to me, because like Jussie Smollett, like Rachel Dolezal, all these kind of racial artists...
They're performance artists who put on a scene.
Because think about it, even the incendiary allegation of racism, they won't name who did it.
And I think the left doesn't even want to know who did it.
Frankly, if there was someone who did it, they'll be able to defend themselves.
But more importantly, it would confine the racism to one person.
By implying that it's some kind of generic racism, kind of just moving like a vapor in the palace establishment, the left gets to make its ideological point.
Without bothering to find out if there's any truth in this accusation at all.
Right. The left just says the entire institution is racist because of colonialism and the entire history.
So it's no surprise that every single person in the palace, every white person is racist.
So we don't even need to know who it was.
There's really no investigation into even who it was.
Meanwhile, Meghan's being investigated for being cruel to a lot of people who worked there.
But I think this is something that's a win, I guess, for the left, because nobody's bothering to say, hey, no Harry, no Meghan, no one ever said that to you, or we always welcomed you guys.
Why are you complaining? You have so much to be thankful for.
But that's not really how the palace operates.
Instead, they say things like, this saddens us.
So we'll see what happens with that.
The correct response to privilege is gratitude, a sense of obligation, perhaps of noblesse oblige.
Instead, you've got these spoiled brats who react with bitter resentment, trying to claim privileges that they actually don't even deserve in the first place.
Thanks for joining me, Danielle. I appreciate it.
Thanks. Got problems with the IRS? I gotta tell you about a time not so long ago when the big bad U.S. government tried to make an example out of me.
And I know firsthand the importance of having proper representation to protect your freedom as well as your finances from being taken by the IRS.
Ryan, Danica, and the Christian folks at South Coast Tax will discuss your unique situation and create a tailored framework of how to attack the situation head-on with the IRS and allow you a true fresh start.
South Coast Tax has a settlement average of 3 cents on the dollar or 97% reduction rate along with an A-plus rating with the Better Business Bureau.
With 20 years of experience, Ryan told me he has yet to see a tax situation that has stumped him.
That's impressive considering the size of the tax laws.
Call Ryan at 800-TAX-3156 or check out their website, southcoasttaxresolution.com.
You'll see for yourself it will be the best move you ever made and the first step in getting your financial freedom back.
That's 800-TAX-3156.
What's up with the current Pope?
The ludicrousness of this guy, Pope Francis, is all the more glaring because he had two outstanding predecessors, Pope John Paul II and then Pope Benedict.
So what a fall it is from those guys, world-class theologians, people of unquestioned moral gravitas, to this clown.
And I recognize he is the Pope.
I want to be respectful of him, but it's a little hard to do that.
Now, his latest comment, ludicrous.
I'm reading from the Daily Mail.
It's appropriately in a London tabloid.
Pope Francis warns mankind faces a second-grade flood caused by global warming.
They quote the Pope.
It's from comments he made to an Italian writer, Marco Posa.
And the Pope goes, we'll face another, quote, great deluge.
This is what will happen now if we continue on the same path.
Now, let's, well, first of all, leave aside the fact that the Bible in Genesis 9-11 makes it really clear there will not be another great deluge.
I'm not quoting Genesis.
This is God talking after the flood.
I establish my covenant with you.
Never again will all life be destroyed by the waters of a flood.
So God says, I'm doing it one time, but evidently Francis, who knows better, is like, no, no, no, no, no, this could, God, God, I think you may have overlooked something.
Global warming. It could happen again.
You're going to need a second arc.
Well, you know what? I have news for you, Pope Francis.
There is an ark. There's a bunch of guys and they're creationists, but they've actually created a new ark.
They've built the ark. It's in Kentucky.
There's an ark museum.
I think it's called the Ark Experience or something like that, but there's a real ark.
Take a look. And so, you know, we're covered.
We're ready. We'll board that one if there's a second flood.
Of course, there's not going to be a second flood.
All of this is utter nonsense.
I think that the reason that they do it is because when you have these apocalyptic predictions, however preposterous, they still freak people out a little bit because there's a natural human response of fear.
I mean, think about it. If you went to some kind of Indian soothsayer and he were to say to you, you know, in return for the $100 or whatever that you give him, he goes, you know, in the next 30 days, a large object will fall on your head.
Well, you know that's stupid.
He doesn't know. The likelihood of it is nearly zero, but because you heard it, it's going to play on you.
You're going to be like, well, I better not walk under that ladder.
You have this odd feeling that a stone may land on your head, even though you know it's stupid.
And these guys have been making stupid predictions one after the other.
They predicted, well, here's James Hansen, considered to be an authority on global warming.
He said that the average temperature would go up 2 to 4 degrees between 2000 and 2010.
Wrong. The real warming was essentially zero.
The average temperature now is about the same as it was in the late 1990s.
There's been virtually no warming trend since the end of the last century.
Based on a bunch of predictions, the Los Angeles Times had warned that all of Montana's glaciers would be gone by 2020.
In fact, Montana's Glacier National Park had all these signs, the glaciers will be gone!
And then they realized here it's 2020, the glaciers are still here.
So, somewhat sheep-faced.
They took down the signs because they realized another prediction bites the dust.
Al Gore said that there will be no more snows of Kilimanjaro.
Well, there are snows of Kilimanjaro.
That one proved to be false.
So, one on top of the other.
And this has been going on for a long time.
It reminds me of, in the 1980s, I think it was, I read the fundamentalist writer Hal Lindsey's The Late Great Planet Earth.
And he basically said, A global world war is coming.
Jesus Christ is coming back.
It's all going to happen basically in the next 10 to 15 years and the 10 to 15 years pass and you realize, you know what?
There's a great difference between what the Bible says and what people interpret it to say.
And similarly with global warming, there's a great difference between what the data actually shows, a very tiny, perhaps one, maybe one and a quarter degree of warming over the past century.
Normally the kind of thing where people go, hmm, interesting.
And move on with their life, but here they're trying to create a global panic over it, and they've been able to recruit the Pope in that effort.
The writer Nick Nolte has done a kind of computation of 41 predictions by the doomsday experts, and here is his scorecard on the climate change people.
Zero for 41.
Every single prediction is proven to be wrong.
So the bottom line of it is we can listen respectfully to the Pope.
We can chuckle privately but maintain a kind of public awe of the guy.
But I think inwardly and at the end of the day, we have to say nope to the Pope.
Sleep is one of my favorite activities, and yours too.
Who doesn't love to sleep?
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, not 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 grateful for you.
They're making an amazing offer.
Buy one, get one free on their 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.
Mike guarantees, and I do, that they will be the most comfortable sheets you'll ever own.
The first night you sleep on them, you won't want to sleep on anything else.
The Geezer 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, buy one, get one free by calling 800-876-0227 and use promo code Dinesh.
For a limited time, buy one, get one free, 800-876-0227, or just go to MyPillow.com, but make sure to use promo code Dinesh.
How much do we really know about COVID-19, about coronavirus around the world?
As it turns out, there are a lot of big, big questions that remain unanswered.
And this is important because whenever we listen to the CDC or we listen to Fauci, there's a certain kind of know-it-all-ness that is conveyed by these authorities.
Like, oh yeah, we've got this figured out.
This is what you do. This is what you do.
This is what you don't do. And what's not often asked is, how much do you know?
What do you know?
And just as important, what is it that you don't know?
So here's a question that a lot of people are scratching their heads over.
Why are COVID rates so low across Asia and Africa?
Including in many of the poorest, most densely populated countries of Asia and Africa, their COVID rates are much lower than they are in Europe and in the United States.
And there's a whole body of data that shows this.
A small example, we have Dr.
Prabhat Jha, Indian guy.
He goes, the rates in Delhi and Mumbai are much lower than the...
Now think about Delhi and Mumbai.
Mumbai is one of the mega cities of the world.
It's got like 30 million people when you count the main city and the surrounding areas.
By the way, the Indian government set up a huge...
Hospital to deal with slum deaths in the slum of Daravi that is actually just near the place where I grew up.
But they had to dismantle the hospital.
They shut it down. Why? Because they didn't have enough COVID patients.
So what's really going on here?
Well, one theory, of course, is that the reason that Africa and Asia have lower...
So then I read in this article...
A second factor is that a lot of people in those countries live outdoors.
In other words, they spend most of their day in the outdoors and not in their tiny, cramped homes.
And that may be true, but again, even if you factor for that, that only makes a small part of the explanation.
After all, these people do have to return to their tiny, crowded homes.
And in India, you've got multiple families living in one room, side by side with each other.
They all use a common bathroom.
So think of the degree of interaction.
Now, the article goes on to say, policy matters, perhaps.
And they go on to say that in a lot of countries like Rwanda and India and so on, they've got these strict COVID rules.
And I'm here to tell you that even though they may have some of these rules, they aren't really followed.
So here's an anecdote from my brother.
He talks about the Indian government imposed a three-person limit in a car.
Only three people are allowed to ride in a car at the same time.
And the Indian government actually set up checkpoints...
To make sure that cars didn't have more than three people.
And so what happened was, the Indians, of course, figured this out in five minutes.
They would pull up to the checkpoint, and about 100 yards before the checkpoint, I mean, you might have had eight guys in the car.
Five guys jump out.
The three guys in the car move up to the checkpoint.
They're cleared. The five guys walk across the checkpoint and re-board the car on the other side of the checkpoint.
So the bottom line of it is, this is how life is in the third world.
Nobody pays strict attention.
And yet, despite all this...
These countries have lower rates.
I think the bottom line of it, and the factor that may be not being paid attention to, maybe the most important factor of all, is that the people in Asia and Africa, they play in the mud, they play in the stream, they play in the dirt, they are exposed from childhood to a lot of microbes, and the bottom line of it is this exposure produces immunities.
That may be, in conjunction with the others, A fuller explanation, perhaps not a full explanation, but a fuller explanation of why COVID rates are lower in Asia and Africa than they are over here.
Do you ever feel the urge to push back against the leftist media narrative of the 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.
Egert Watch's CEO Elon is an unapologetic supporter of police and taking a very strong stance against this defund the police movement.
He designed a commemorative police watch that's beautiful.
I noticed special details like the engraving and the quote on the back.
Ilan 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 15% away of all sales from this model to police charities.
If you haven't seen Ilan'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 egardwatches.com to make your order.
It's time we support companies that stand up for what we believe and Egard is a company I am proud to recommend.
I want to compare and contrast two cases because they're so illuminating for our time.
The case of George Floyd and the case of Ashley Babbitt.
The one, George Floyd, the left never wants you to forget.
And the other, Ashley Babbitt, they don't want you to remember.
Now, the George Floyd trial, or should I say the Derek Chauvin trial, one of the cops, the main guy who put his knee on Floyd's neck, this trial is underway.
And as we look at it, just from the beginning, the jury selection, the process, the juror is talking about, I'm terrified.
I don't know if my life will be safe if I serve on this jury.
It's very clear that this is not a trial.
There's haunting it, the fear of mob justice, mob rule, lynch mob mentality.
And there's actually been Antifa communications back and forth that, hey, if this comes out the wrong way, we're going to make them pay for it.
So this is a terrible situation for a democracy, for a country with rule of law.
I think that the presumption here is guilty until proven innocent.
And this is all very bad.
Now while this is going on on the one hand, on the other, Ashley Babbitt, who I guess her family refuses to go away quietly, has hired a legal team and they put out a statement which is kind of illuminating, illuminating because it throws light on the circumstances that occurred.
And I just want to read a few sentences from this statement because of what the Babbitt family position is on this.
They say, first of all, it is a universal law enforcement standard that police officers should use no more force than is necessary to accomplish a lawful purpose.
They go, at 5 feet 2 inches tall, I didn't know this, but she was 5 feet 2 inches, and 110 pounds, An arrest of Ashley could have been accomplished by a single trained officer with a set of handcuffs.
At the time of the shooting, there were over a half dozen police officers in close proximity to the speaker's door where Ashley was standing.
Some of those officers had allowed the protesters access to the door by stepping aside.
Others, dressed in full tactical gear, stood among the protesters unconcerned with the activities of Ashley and the protesters.
Given her background as a 14-year veteran of the Air Force, it is likely Ashley would have complied with simple verbal commands, thereby making any use of force unnecessary.
So pay attention to what did happen and also what didn't happen.
The officer who shot Ashley never attempted to arrest her.
Nor did he call on his fellow officers to arrest her.
Instead, he fired a shot into her chest.
Witnesses confirmed the officer did not give Ashley a single verbal warning prior to firing.
Ashley was not even aware that the officer was present or had drawn his firearm.
The officer who shot Ashley has to this date not been identified.
Look at the contrast with the George Floyd case.
Neither the Capitol Police nor any other government authority has given an account of the facts.
There has been no official explanation or justification.
It's almost as if Ashley Babbitt's life doesn't matter.
And so, when we talk about white privilege and so on, it's important to realize that if you look at these two cases alone, if somebody came to the Earth from Mars and was asked to investigate just these two cases, George Floyd and Ashley, as a metaphor for what's happening in American society, they would basically come to the conclusion that there is obviously black privilege, not white privilege.
It obviously would seem to follow that if Ashley Babbitt were black, if Ashley Babbitt maybe had George Floyd's criminal record, if Ashley Babbitt maybe had the same drug problems that George Floyd did, Somehow she'd be a heroine.
There'd be a massive investigation, massive demonstrations.
The cop who did this would be hauled up before.
He'd be investigated. He'd be suspended pending the investigation.
He'd be arrested. He'd be prosecuted for murder.
The discrepancy in the treatment is so startling.
And again, if someone came forward and gave full reasons for it, look, here's why the two cases are so dissimilar.
Here's why George Floyd was a marvelous individual, an exemplar virtue.
Here's why Ashley Babbitt was a horrible person who deserved to die.
No, no one has ever provided these explanations, almost as if the awkward silence that we have surrounding these two cases.
Remember, in both cases, we have a person who is lethally Harmed by a police officer.
And so the comparison almost invites itself, demands to be taken seriously, and the fact that it's not being taken seriously, I think, reflects the guilty double standard of a society that is submitted to a real double standard on the issue of race.
I've been telling you about Birch Gold Group for a few weeks.
Now I buy my gold from Birch Gold, and so should you.
And Birch Gold now has 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 48484
for your free information kit on precious metals IRA or to speak with a Birch Gold representative With 10,000 customers, they have an A-plus rating with the Better Business Bureau, countless five-star reviews, and they can help you too.
Text Dinesh to 484848 for your free safe with purchase.
If you were to ask me today if the United States is a free country, I would pause and hesitate.
I would not have a clear answer to give you.
And this is even for me a surprise because for most of my adult life, and certainly in all the time I've been in America, my answer would have been manifestly Yes.
And when people would say things to me like, oh, you know, the degree of confiscatory taxation is rising and the government has its messy fingers in our lives, I would normally chuckle and say, well, yes, but in fundamental respects, the basic decisions we make about our own lives were free and we remain free.
But now I'm less sure.
Why? Because many of our very fundamental liberties either have been taken away or could easily be taken away.
The danger to freedom is not just in what is done, but what can be done.
If someone, for example, could always exercise power over you at their whim, their discretion, then you're not truly free.
You're at their whim. You're at their mercy.
Now, there will be people who listen to this and certainly people on the left who will go, well, I don't see these problems, Dinesh.
No one's taking away my free speech.
No one is actually preventing me from worshipping where I want.
No one is infringing on my liberty.
And it's important to realize that in any society, however tyrannical, there are always people who are exempt from the tyranny.
So, for example, if you lived in fascist Italy under Mussolini and you were in Mussolini's party, Well, no one was suppressing your free speech.
You had every right to praise Mussolini.
If you live in Venezuela, you are free if you are a chavista.
You can basically live your life the way you want.
And in fact, you won't feel the constraints of the society because they don't really apply to you.
You're not a dissident, so they're not going to lock you up.
You're out there marching in favor of the regime.
You're the beneficiary of the regime's actions.
So, I think in America, we have to be aware that the situation, we feel the unfreedom because it applies to us.
For other people, they don't feel it because it doesn't seem to apply to them.
But the point I want to make is we are in a bad place.
And we are in a bad place...
I've been reading a great book that I recommend to you.
I want to talk a little bit about it.
It's Alexander Solzhenitsyn.
Not his most famous work, which is the Gulag Archipelago.
It was that great work that convinced the European intellectuals to turn against Soviet communism.
It brought about a real shift in the West.
And Solzhenitsyn described the horrors of this kind of vast network of prison camps stretching across multiple time zones in an area that's actually bigger than Europe itself.
Now, I want to talk about this book, One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich.
Kind of a good way to get yourself into Solzhenitsyn.
It's kind of a slim volume, just 175 pages or so.
Almost a breathtakingly simple story and in a kind of chilling way applicable to our situation.
Now, people say, well, Dinesh, well, we don't live in a labor camp.
Nobody is locked up. You know, true, we're not there.
But then who would have thought that we would be here, where we are, as compared to just, say, five years ago or ten years ago?
No one would have thought that things would deteriorate so rapidly.
So it's worth studying tyranny because it could, in fact, happen here.
Now, Solzhenitsyn is talking about, his story involves one man.
This is a bricklayer, Ivan Denisovich.
And he's trapped in Siberia on one day.
It's one day in the life of Ivan Denisovich.
And Solzhenitsyn kind of walks through his day.
And you might expect him to show great horrors and terrible tortures and so on.
It's not like that. Solzhenitsyn is talking about the Gulag, and it's a fictional story, but not totally.
Why? Because Solzhenitsyn himself was in the Gulag.
He had written a letter that had criticized Stalin.
Someone found out about it, and in that kind of macabre network of informants, someone told on him.
And he ended up spending eight years in a Soviet prison camp.
So Solzhenitsyn knows what he's talking about.
And he also knows how it happens.
Your family members tell on you.
Your neighbors tell on you.
Think of what's happening in America today where people are encouraged to, like, report on your family member who went to the Trump rally on January 6th.
You know, call in somebody who made a post on social media.
Out them. So this kind of stuff, almost you would think unthinkable in America, is now not only thinkable in America, it's happening in America.
What makes Ivan Denisovich such a powerful story is it's ordinary life.
And you get the sense that here is Ivan Denisovich and he's lost his humanity.
In fact, horrific things happen in the day.
They happen with the greatest casualness and we see them through Denisovich's eyes and he's not even shocked by them.
At one point they're talking about a guy who's a meat cutter, a bread cutter, and the guy in the prison camp goes, Gopchik, he'll do well.
Give him another three years.
He still has to grow up.
He'll become a really good bread cutter.
He stayed it for it.
So the idea here is that the three years is mentioned almost casually.
Yeah, they're talking about other things.
Give him another three years.
It's almost like saying, give him a traffic ticket.
Three more years of his life have been just wiped out with a single sentence.
And what's interesting is Denisovich, listening to this, he's not phased.
Why? Because to him, that's not so bad.
Okay, three more years, so what?
And so, in this book, they talk about five years, ten years, they talk about these things as if they're sentencing you to go stand in a corner.
And at the end of it, this is the crusher.
Ivan Denisovich says, his nickname is Shukov.
Shukov went to sleep fully content.
He'd had many strokes of luck that day.
They hadn't put him in the cells.
They hadn't sent his squad to the settlement.
He had gotten a bowl of soup at dinner.
He built a wall and enjoyed doing it.
He smuggled a small bit of a hacksaw blade.
He earned a favor from another guy.
He got a little whiff of tobacco.
He hadn't fallen ill.
And then Solzhenitsyn goes, a day without a dark cloud, almost a happy day.
So, from Denisovich's standard, this wasn't so bad.
And then Solzhenitsyn says, this was one day, there are 3,653 days like this, still to come.
3,653 days, the extra three days were for leap years.
So the guy is serving a multi-year prison sentence, and you get a vivid picture of what Orwell meant when he talked about a boot stamping on a human face.
That was his definition of tyrannical socialism.
That was the destiny of the Soviet Union for 70 years.
They got rid of it.
Oddly enough, and chillingly enough, we seem to be moving slowly but inexorably in that direction.
I've talked to you about Mike Lindell's pillows and about his Giza Dream Sheets.
I want to talk about something that you can use in the luxury of your bedroom.
This is a three-piece duvet set from my pillow.
This set is made with 100% certified Egyptian cotton and finished with a sateen weave.
Giza long staple cotton fibers are grown specifically for the highest levels of quality So you can enjoy luxurious year-round comfort.
Save 30% off the MyPillow duvet covers with promo code Dinesh.
Call 800-876-0227 or go to MyPillow.com.
Make sure to use promo code Dinesh.
It's time for our mailbox. We're getting really good questions and we're starting to get video questions.
So you can send in your question to me both as an audio or as a video and send it to questiondinesh at gmail.com.
This question is about the federal government and the states.
Listen. Hi Dinesh, this is Al in Florida.
My wife and I are big fans of your podcast and appreciate how you bring the facts and clarity to so many important issues and how you debunk the lies of the left and the leftist media.
I've been seeing news lately of legislation being enacted locally at county levels to establish what they're calling constitutional sanctuaries and or second amendment sanctuaries.
Some are calling it a growing movement to push back against federal tyranny in coming months.
My question is, do these laws really carry weight?
Can they really protect us from tyranny by overriding new federal laws that the counties deem unconstitutional or are they merely a symbolic show of resistance likely to be overturned in federal courts?
That's my question and again, thank you for keeping us informed with the truth.
Thanks.
So this is an excellent question.
And it basically says that, hey, we have rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment, the right to own a firearm.
It's right there. Congress shall make no law.
And yet Congress might make laws.
Might make laws infringing on the Second Amendment.
And the question is, hey, can the states push back by affirming those principles of the Second Amendment, by passing, if you will, sanctuary laws for gun owners and for people to carry, and will that be a bulwark against federal encroachment of the Second Amendment?
Now, here's the point.
First of all, the courts don't need the states to do this in order to protect the Second Amendment.
The Second Amendment could not be more clear.
Congress shall make no law.
The same is true, by the way, of the First Amendment.
Congress shall make no laws.
So, the states don't have to show up in order for the courts to go, listen, is this a question of the federal government or the states?
No, no such question arises.
Congress is not given the power to do it, and the courts should strike it down on that ground alone.
Now... I do think that it is helpful for the states to jump up and down and say, listen, at a time when Congress is actually taking steps to undermine legitimate constitutional rights, we the states will do what we can to protect those rights.
And we're calling on the Supreme Court to recognize that those rights are in the Constitution and that they are now being protected by states where the federal government is proving derelict in its responsibility.
So, I wouldn't say the state actions are symbolic.
I'm really glad the states are doing this.
It would be similar to states fighting digital censorship and fighting against infringements on other provisions of the Bill of Rights, the First Amendment, rights to conscience, and so on.
Bottom line, the Supreme Court is the one that needs to step in.
They ducked out on the election cases, which I think was a bit of a disgrace, but They are the guardian of the basic liberties that are enshrined in the Bill of Rights, and the court should use its own direct power to strike down congressional infringements of the Second Amendment.
▲
Export Selection