All Episodes
Previous Next
April 26, 2021 - Dinesh D'Souza
01:04:30
THE “WOKE” RUSE Dinesh D’Souza Podcast Ep 76
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
James O'Keefe of Project Veritas joins me to talk about striking back at Twitter and CNN. On police shootings, should the police shoot him in the leg?
Shoot him in the little toe?
Shoot in the air? Whoops, I shot a bird.
Whoops, I shot a skydiver.
This is the Dinesh D'Souza podcast.
The times are crazy, and a time of confusion, division, and lies.
We need a brave voice of reason, understanding, and truth.
This is the Dinesh D'Souza Podcast.
The debate about police shootings continues to escalate.
And now you actually have people on the left who are saying what the police should do in such situations, which is actually a legitimate question, right?
A cop is going to think, well, you don't want me to do this, so what am I expected to do?
What is the correct course of action in your view?
Well, according to President Biden...
He says the police officer should shoot armed suspects in the leg, so don't aim to kill, aim to wound.
Joy Behar takes an even, you may say, kinder, gentler approach, which is she says that if someone is armed with a knife, the policeman should just shoot in the air.
Whoops, I shot a bird.
Whoops, I shot a skydiver.
But this is, I would call it armchair policing.
These are people who have not had the experience of being on the street, as I haven't.
But I'm at least a little modest about my recommendations for what police should do because I recognize that I'm not in that situation.
But it seems to me that with Biden and especially with Joy Behar, you have this sort of, you know, I would almost call it movie mentality.
Oh, you know, I saw a Western one time where John Wayne shot the gun out of the other man's hand or shot the gun out of his holster.
Why don't the police do that?
Or, you know, for Asian Indians, it's the Bollywood movies.
I mean, I remember movies as a kid where the detective or the cop would, like, just basically crouch and then jump to the third floor to apprehend the suspect.
Basically become Superman, get wings, through kind of movie magic.
Or, of course, there's, why can't the cop be like the guy in American Sniper?
He was able to hit a target within three inches at 800 meters away.
Well... Cops aren't actually American snipers.
Snipers are trained to do that, and cops are trained in a little bit of a different way.
So let's try to look at the logic of police shootings, if there is a logic behind it.
Now, first of all, the police have to be careful about using not even lethal force, but even force at all.
So let's say, for example, a policeman confronts a suspect who turns around and runs.
Well, the policeman is trained, typically, to give chase.
The policeman doesn't draw his weapon and shoot either, not even in the leg, which would seem an easy way to stop the suspect, but policemen are trained not to do that.
Why? Because they're not facing imminent threat.
So this is the key standard.
It's the key standard in the training manuals, and it's the key standard in the law.
When there is an imminent threat, either to the policeman or to a third party, now let's look at the Makia Bryant's situation.
Makia Bryant, this 16-year-old black girl, had a knife and she was in the process of lunging.
Now, I realize some of the media outlets tried to camouflage her responsibility by hiding the knife in the video or pretending like she might not have had the knife or even the fiction that her victim, the other girl, had a knife, which she did not.
So, what is the cop to do in that situation?
Well... One thing the cop would do is not get involved.
And the effect of that, of course, would be that the other girl might well be severely wounded if not killed.
I mean, the logic of this is white policemen should stay out of black communities, leave it, let them figure their own stuff out.
And then you'd see a rise of violence, probably including vigilante killings, because after all, the cop's not going to do it.
People take the law into their own hands.
So you basically get certain neighborhoods in Chicago.
That's what's happening now.
And the cops, by and large, you know, in some cases try to stay away.
That's one remedy, but that's not a Black Lives Matter remedy because that actually is the remedy that says black lives don't matter.
We'll let you sort your own problems out.
We'll only police the white neighborhoods because they deserve protection and you don't.
The other option is for the policeman to try to aim for the leg.
Now the problem with this, and actually, although I'm not much of a shooter, my wife Debbie is.
She has a CHL. She's done tactical training courses.
And she says that they train you not to shoot for the arm or the leg, really for two reasons.
One, there's a much higher likelihood of missing.
You could maybe nick the guy, but you're not going to disable him.
You're not going to actually neutralize the threat.
Not to mention the fact that you could hit the wrong target if a policeman aims for Makia's leg, he could hit the other girl instead.
So the idea is that when you're facing a threat, identify the perpetrator and shoot in the large area of the body where you are very likely to neutralize that threat.
So threat neutralization, the policeman isn't really shooting to kill per se, he's shooting to stop the threat.
That's the overwhelming motive here.
And that's why police do what they do.
A small case.
This is from 2019.
Aaron Hong runs at the policeman with a knife.
The policeman begs him, drop the knife, drop the knife.
He won't do it. So, basically, the officer fires seven rounds, but a bunch of shots missed.
Hong was hit at least once, but that's okay.
He falls down, he gets up, and he runs at the other officer and is grabbing his weapon when a third officer shoots him three more rounds.
Finally, he goes down. So imagine, you know, what is the utility in this situation of Biden saying, aim for the leg, aim for the leg, or Behar, shoot in the air, shoot in the air.
None of this is even a response to the reality of the situation.
The simple bottom line of it is, the police do what they do to neutralize the threat and protect us.
Hey, Mike Lindell is the famous pillow guy, and we really do love Mike Lindell's pillows.
But we also love his other products.
We've gotten the robes, the dog beds, the throws, the blankets, the towels, and the sheets.
And right now, you can buy one, get one free on his sheet set.
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 bedsheets are made with this long staple cotton.
Mike guarantees, and I guarantee, they'll be the most comfortable sheets you'll ever own.
The first night you sleep on them, you'll never want to sleep on anything else.
The Giza Dream sheets are available in a variety of colors and 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.
Call 800-876-0227 or go to MyPillow.com.
Don't forget to use promo code Dinesh.
How do we make sense of this phenomenon of the woke corporation?
It's a puzzle because traditionally and historically corporations, including big corporations, have been leaning to the Republican Party, leaning to the right.
The Chamber of Commerce traditionally has supported Republican candidates, both at the presidential and at the state level.
But now you've got all these corporations, long lists of them, We're not just talking about a few kind of left-wing corporations, Nike and so on.
We're talking about mainstream corporations, Coke, Delta Airlines and down the list.
And they are openly affiliating with the left.
They're all Black Lives Matter.
They have all these diversity programs.
What's really going on?
There's a recent article by Glenn Greenwald.
Who's on the left, but independent, speaks his mind, and is controversial on the left because of it.
But Greenwald has an article where he's talking really more about these spy agencies.
And he starts by talking about the British spy agency, which he says, and I believe him, is such a rogue operation.
It's allowed to operate really without almost any scrutiny, above the law, if you will, because they're so scurrilous in the way that they...
They spy on people in the way in which they blackmail people, in which they use sex setups to entrap people.
And he goes, they're so bad that other Western countries, including the U.S., when they find some job that is too sleazy to carry out in America or Australia, they give it over to the British because those guys apparently have absolutely no scruples at all.
And then he goes, but when you look closer at the British spy agency, he goes, they're majorly woke.
They love gay people.
They love the cause of LGBTQ so much that they have International Day against homophobia, transphobia, and biphobia.
In fact, they take their little, you know, creepy headquarters, the center of spying operations where people are probably, like, choked to death, dropped in water, turned upside down, who knows what else.
And he goes, yeah, but they've got a rainbow flag around it.
So the basic idea, says Glenn Greenwald, is that these thugs...
These spooks, these immoral people who are willing to do ruthless things, supposedly in the name of their country, although much of the time it has nothing to do with genuine national interest at all.
He goes, they're using the rainbow flag to immunize themselves from criticism.
Yeah, some people will say, well, I've got some questions about the British spy agency, but the bottom line of it is you don't have massive demonstrations.
Hey, when's the last time you saw a massive demonstration at Langley?
Outside the CIA headquarters.
Yeah. In Langley, Maryland?
Answer? Almost never.
Why, says Glenn Greenwald?
Because the CIA, too, has gone woke.
Right in the middle of, like, orchestrating military coups over here, killing this guy over there, domestic disinformation campaigns.
The CIA, which is supposed to be only operating abroad, is now operating at home.
Oh yeah, this guy was seen at the Trump rally, and so on.
All this stuff is going on, so these scoundrels, these thugs...
They nevertheless have apparently, this is the CIA, Women's Day.
They have an agency network of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender officers.
That's called ANGLE. They host activities for Pride Month.
They also have all this stuff for Black History Month.
The FBI is exactly the same and says, Greenwald, what's going on here?
What's going on here? You've got low-down, scarless people.
People who are, in a sense, criminals with badges.
People who are authorized, and in some cases unauthorized, to act above the law.
To essentially just go someplace and kill people.
Or entrap them. Do things that if the ordinary citizen did, you'd be facing life in prison.
If not the lethal injection.
They do all this stuff, but they're able to insulate themselves from criticism.
Because look! We're, you know, we're good guys.
We're woke. Now, I think something of the same thing is going on with these war corporations.
Because the truth of the matter is, particularly in an age of globalism, they're doing a lot of sleazy stuff.
Both abroad and at home.
So they run sweatshops in Thailand.
They employ Chinese workers for, you know, pennies on the dollar.
They pay all these politicians to give them tax breaks.
So even if the tax rate goes up, they're protected.
Look at all the insurance companies that met in back rooms with the Obama people and made all kinds of deals.
Yeah, go ahead and force people to buy insurance, then turn over the business to us so we'll make all the profits.
Yeah, we'll do that as long as you buy all these ads supporting Obamacare.
So all this racketeering, pure and simple, is going on with these corporations.
And therefore, their woke status is a way of protecting themselves.
Well, yeah, but we're for gay rights.
This is kind of the Clinton defense.
Yeah, I'm a sex predator, but, you know, I'm for the Equal Rights Amendment.
It's a way of trying to deflect attention away from what you're really doing, all the really bad stuff you're doing, to claim some kind of immunity.
I think, for example, of the, you know, there's apparently a British guy.
I'm sitting somewhere, you know, in some probably tea house in London.
I am very concerned about the ID voting requirement in Georgia.
Really? Well, you have an ID voting requirement to get into the Koch shareholders meeting.
You need ID requirements to do 50 other things in America.
But the idea here is that this guy is selling something that is very bad for people.
You're very likely to get COVID if you're like 400 pounds.
And you're very likely to be 400 pounds if you drink three Cokes a day.
Diet Coke is no better for you anyway.
So you've got these people, they're selling basically poison.
It's tasty poison, perhaps, but it's poison all the same.
And particularly in the rest of the world, they're killing, I think by one report, 180,000 people a year.
And by the way, most of those brown and black people.
Yeah. So, this is Coke.
But how do you get out of that?
How do you turn people's attention away from the harmfulness of Europe?
How do you prevent a kind of anti-sugary drink campaign of gathering momentum?
Kind of the way an anti-tobacco campaign has gathered momentum.
How do you achieve that?
Well, here's how you achieve it. I'm sitting here in a tea house in Birmingham, and I'm very concerned about the voter ID requirement in Georgia.
This is how you do it. People go, oh, Coke!
This is amazing! These Coca-Cola people are so enlightened and so on and so on.
This is really what this woke ideology is all about.
It's essentially a formula for protecting some dirty rotten scoundrels.
Don't you want to pay off high-interest credit cards, get a lower rate, and save money?
Refinance your credit card balances and save with a credit card consolidation loan from Lightstream.
It's an easy way to save hundreds to thousands of dollars and lower your interest rate.
Lightstream offers credit card consolidation loans from 5.95% APR with auto pay and excellent credit.
Lower than the average credit card interest rate of over 18% APR. Plus, there are no fees.
You can even get your money as soon as the day you apply.
Lightstream believes that people with good credit deserve a better loan experience, and that's exactly what they deliver.
Just for my listeners, apply now to get a special interest rate discount and save even more.
The only way to get this discount is to go to lightstream.com slash Dinesh.
That's L-I-G-H-T-S-T-R-E-A-M dot com slash Dinesh.
Subject to credit card approval, rates range from 5.95% APR to 19.99% APR and include 0.50% auto-pay discount.
Lowest rate requires excellent credit.
Terms and conditions apply and offers a subject to change without notice.
Visit lightstream.com slash Dinesh for more information.
I'm really happy to have James O'Keefe back on the show.
What I love about James O'Keefe is that he is a fighter.
Not only does he dig up the dirt on the other side, but when they strike, he strikes back.
And we're going to talk today about really three lawsuits.
One against the New York Times, one against Twitter, and one against CNN. Hey James, thanks for coming on the podcast.
Let's start with the New York Times.
I understand that there's some update.
I mean, I was laughing my head off when I saw the New York Times' original filing in this lawsuit.
To back up, they basically accused you of running a kind of disinformation outfit.
And then when challenged to prove it, they go, hey, listen...
We're just presenting opinion and not facts.
We don't have any proof, but rather this is protected as opinion.
So apparently they confessed that they were running, quote, opinion on their news pages.
What's the latest on the New York Times trying to get out of a situation in which you seem to have caught them red-handed?
Yeah. Thanks, Dinesh, for having me back on.
Yeah, so the New York Times, in the defamation lawsuit we filed, we've won on motion to dismiss, which is pretty significant.
Only a few people have accomplished that since New York Times v.
Sullivan in 1964.
And the New York Times was forced to answer our allegations this past week.
And I'm about to film a video today, the time of this filming.
Right after this, I'm going to...
What the New York Times said, and they made some pretty damning admissions because they're required by law now to respond to Project Veritas' allegations about their malice.
So they made some stunning admissions in this court filing in New York and the Supreme Court of the State of New York, where we filed the suit.
And for those of you who haven't filed this closely, it's very significant because September 27th, New York Times did an A-section news article saying that Project Veritas was, quote, deceptive.
Part of a, quote, disinformation campaign, that we were making claims, quote, without evidence.
And Facebook banned our videos on Minnesota voter fraud based entirely upon the New York Times' reporting in this article.
But in these court filings, the New York Times admits that it was a mere opinion, Dinesh, what they were reporting.
That it was an, quote, unverifiable expression of opinion.
So Facebook banned our videos based upon a New York Times article, which now it comes out in court, is just their opinion and not facts.
But James...
Yeah, let me ask you, what do they mean when they say unverifiable?
You actually had the guys that you were showing in the video...
So even if the New York Times was too lazy to go verify it, it was not unverifiable.
It was verifiable. They could track it down and make sure that your video was authentic.
They could have contacted you to say, show us the original footage.
Did they do any of that?
Yes, exactly. Exactly what's coming out in this court filing.
The New York Times is required by law or they're held in contempt of court.
That's the beauty of a defamation lawsuit.
In this answer, there's some stunning admissions, brand new admissions, including they didn't call people for comment.
They didn't do the necessary due diligence that reporters would be expected to do.
They did all the sorts of things that we would expect.
It's like a South Park episode of a New York Times reporter.
So this is extraordinary, Dinesh, and the reason why it matters is because now we're headed towards discovery.
That means we get to open up their reporter notebooks.
We get to depose them.
If you're not familiar with what the deposition is, it means that you sit for 10 hours under oath on videotape.
These are New York Times reporters.
This is a privilege they've always had.
You and I, especially me, I've been deposed more times than I can count.
I'm very transparent about my operations.
The only thing I protect are donor names and whistleblower names.
Everything else is fair game.
These people, New York Times, The Washington Post and CNN, they rely upon darkness.
They rely upon nobody having access to their methods.
That's why they get away with lying about people.
They doctor the tapes.
They selectively edit.
They do all the things they accuse me of doing, but no one can ever hold them accountable because no one has the balls, the resources or the will to sue them, Dinesh.
That's what Project Veritas is doing.
And we have won a huge victory.
Now, we're also suing Twitter for defamation in New York And today, that's Monday, today of this week, April 26th, we are launching a federal lawsuit against CNN also for defamation.
Let's go slowly and start by talking.
Well, first of all, in the New York Times, I think it is wonderful that you are, well, you're really showing what's behind the curtain.
It's the Wizard of Oz all over again.
You're really showing that these guys will pretend to be one thing.
Which is to say objective news operations, reliable, we've been told by credible sources that it's basically fake.
You're exposing fake news.
Now let's turn to Twitter because Twitter banned you permanently.
You had almost a million followers on Twitter.
And their claim was, and I'm now quoting from their spokesman as reflected in TechCrunch.com, a bunch of other places, that you were, quote, operating fake accounts and you were apparently artificially amplifying or disrupting conversation through the use of...
Multiple accounts.
And so my question straight out is, has Twitter come to you and said, Hey, James, here are your seven fake accounts, or here's even your three fake accounts.
Have they done anything like that?
Have they given you any evidence that you have been operating supposedly fake accounts?
No, they haven't.
And that's why I'm suing them for defamation, because their statement that I've, quote, operated fake accounts is false and defamatory.
Now, you could say Section 230 protects them, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.
Well, Section 230 protects Twitter from what other people say on their platforms.
Section 230 does not protect Twitter executives from lying about me.
So Section 230 will not protect them in this litigation.
This is a libel action filed in New York State Court because they have lied.
Now, Dinesh, what's interesting about this is that Twitter banned both Project Veritas a month ago, and now they're banning me.
When they banned Project Veritas, Twitter made the argument that we were, quote, violating people's privacy rights.
By reporting on them.
This is like something out of a dystopian novel, but it's unfortunately true what's actually happening.
We were confronting the Facebook vice president in the street, in a residential community in the street, something which CNN does all the time.
In fact, CNN's Drew Griffin confronted a private resident outside of her trailer home and confronted her of being a Russian person supporting Trump.
And CNN did not blur the number on her house.
Local news reporters confront people all the time at their doors.
It's actually called a doorstop in television news reporting.
So CNN, I'm sorry, Twitter removed Project Veritas for doing the thing that all journalists do.
And now Twitter has removed me and falsely claimed that I quote, operate fake accounts.
I've never operated a fake Twitter account in my life.
However, there are people on Twitter who are impersonating me and those people remain.
Dinesh. So under, if there weren't for double standards, there would be no standards at all for these people at the New York Times.
And it's high time that, I mean, I don't even consider myself a conservative in this sense, because there's nothing that, I mean, what I'm doing is journalism, and what we're doing is, but I think conservatives need to stop whining and complaining.
We're actually trying to hold these people accountable by suing them.
And just so that your audience knows, Project Veritas has Has never actually lost a lawsuit.
And the reason that is, is because we do not settle litigation.
We go all the way to a jury verdict, and if necessary, to the Court of Appeals, and if necessary, to the United States Supreme Court, which is actually what we're doing in one of our cases.
And the facts and the law are on our side, Dinesh.
We will get past motion to dismiss against CNN and Twitter, and in fact, we will get discovery into Twitter and depose the CEO of Twitter under oath.
When we come back, I want to probe this Twitter lawsuit some more and also talk about James O'Keefe and Project Veritas lawsuit against CNN. I've warned you before about home title theft, where cyber thieves remove you from your home's title and become the owner.
I said, you better get home title lock because it's coming.
Well, if you're on Facebook, that big breach is here.
Facebook had 500 million accounts exposed to cyber thieves.
And according to a retired FBI cyber crime expert, everything thieves need to take over as the new owner of your home, Was leaked.
Name, address, personal information, it's out.
The thief forges your signature on a quitclaim deed stating you sold your home to him.
He'll leave you in debt or even have you evicted.
Do what I did and protect your home, your home title with Home Title Lock.
Go to HomeTitleLock.com and register your address to see if you're already a victim.
And sign up for 30 days free of protection during this high-risk breach.
again go to hometitlelock.com and use promo code radio that's hometitlelock.com promo code radio.
I'm back with James O'Keefe of Project Veritas. James, so we were talking about Twitter and the fact that they were claiming that you have all these bogus accounts. Now you know in libel you have to prove not just that they are making a statement as false which seems obvious here, number two that it's damaging to you that's also obvious because they're shutting you down on the basis of it and three that they operated with the knowledge that it's false or with reckless disregard of the truth.
And it seems to me that that criterion is easily satisfied here because Twitter knows if you have false accounts or not.
So if they claim you have false accounts, they obviously have access to that information.
They are knowingly lying, aren't they?
Yeah, Dinesh, that's the reckless disregard for the truth standard established in the Supreme Court.
New York Times versus Sullivan decision, 1964, considered the holy grail of journalists.
I would actually argue that that New York Times decision is bad law.
And frankly, one day it needs to be overturned at the Supreme Court, this sort of reckless disregard for the truth.
I'm a public official, as are you.
So if they lie about me, I have to prove they knowingly lied, like what you just said, that they were malicious in their lies.
But the paradox is...
It's very difficult to prove that until after you get past motion to dismiss in a lawsuit.
So it's a catch-22. Traditionally, people have not been successful in defamation lawsuits because you have to prove the thing that you can't prove until you get to discovery in litigation.
Now, what's interesting about this is these people have become so reckless and so outrageous in their defamation, particularly in this New York Times lawsuit, We're good to go.
Before they even sent me the reason why I was banned.
And then 33 minutes later, I got an email with this reason that I had created fake accounts, that I was using manipulation and spam.
In fact, the CNN videos were doing the thing that Twitter was designed to do, which is citizen journalism, citizen empowerment.
I was quoting the CNN director, Charlie Chester, calling CNN propaganda, saying that they were painting Biden as a young geriatric, trying to get Trump out of office.
I was quoting the man.
And I was showing him in his own words, his lips moving.
And that was, I mean, what we're fighting for here, Dinesh, in this litigation, are principles so fundamental, the right of me to quote somebody and repeat what they told me.
I'm not opining about CNN. I'm not using bombastic rhetoric to lambaste CNN like many people do.
No, no. I'm quoting a CNN director.
And the implications of tech We're good to go.
So you think Twitter did this because they were running a protection racket for CNN? In other words, you busted CNN. You had chapter and verse.
It was right there on the video.
No one could deny it.
And it's almost like CNN went into a huddle.
To my knowledge, they haven't still fired the guy.
And Twitter bans you, as if you're the culprit here.
Now, interestingly, I noticed that on CNN, unbelievably, Anna Cabrera...
what Twitter says you were banned for, namely fake accounts, but she claims that you were banned for spreading disinformation.
And is that the basis of your CNN lawsuit, that here's CNN flatly lying even about what Twitter told you, and so they're engaging in knowingly defamatory conduct?
That's right, Dinesh.
You articulated that very well.
This is a lawsuit filed in federal court.
It will be filed later today.
And Anna Cabrera, host of CNN, said that Project Red House was banned for spreading disinformation, which is not even the reason that Twitter gave us something.
I mean, this has really become, as I've said to you prior, no longer George Orwell or Huxley's Brave New World.
Now we're entering some type of Tom Cruise science fiction oblivion movie.
This is some type of artificial intelligence combined with an oligarchy between the networks and tech.
And it's really disgusting.
I mean, the conduct of Cabrera and Brian Stelter on CNN, where they said on air that our account, Veritas, was removed for disinformation.
Stelter claiming there were multiple reasons.
Uh, We're good to go.
to take these people through a lawsuit and most people don't want to subject themselves to discovery and cross-examination.
I am happy to subject my emails, my employees through cross-examination because I know that when we depose Ana Cabrera and Brian Stelter and Jack Dorsey and CNN's president and all the people That we're in cahoots to do this sort of activity, remove me within hours of our videos trending number two on twitter.com, that we will discover and find out information that will shock the consciences of Americans.
And usually, Dinesh, I want to say one more thing about this lawsuit.
Usually people settle.
You know, Nick Sandman, the young man who was defamed by the Washington Post, he settled.
Why he settled is beyond me.
He should have taken those people through depositions into trial.
Dinesh, I will not settle this lawsuit.
In every other case that I'm aware of, the New York Times has settled the lawsuit once they get past the motion to dismiss.
New York Times, there's no amount of money that they can pay me.
I will not be bought. Project Veritas is not for sale.
The discovery to us is worth infinity.
And we look forward to the deposition process in a few months.
Well, this, it seems to me, is the key, namely to be able to have the ability to hit back.
And I think, you know, it's to your credit that you not only have the ability to hit back, but you have the will.
Because it's remarkable to see on the Republican side.
I remember you got into a little bit of an exchange with some guy from National Review.
I don't even know the guy's name, but he was whining about, oh, Project Veritas, their information is a little suspect.
And you were a little bit like, listen, friend, what have you ever done for the cause?
Here I am kind of fighting to get this information out.
I'm fighting against these big giants on the left.
And here you're sitting around and basically twiddling your thumbs and two-bitting all day and criticizing me when I'm on the front line and frankly, you're not.
Well, I think you've said it.
I think I saw you, Dinesh, speak to.
It was Heritage Foundation four or five years ago.
And you made this statement, which I'll never forget.
You said people fear the humiliating power of the press.
They fear the terrifying and humiliating power.
And I think that guy's name was McLaughlin.
He works for National Review, which is William F. Buckley's own founding magazine.
I mean, and this guy, I don't know him, but I guess he considers himself a conservative in some sense.
And he's attacking me.
For not having done enough.
And I guess my response, McLaughlin, and I'm not on Twitter anymore, so hopefully, Dinesh, you can tag him in a thread when you post this, is, you know, yeah, you're right, I haven't done enough.
And I'm trying to do more.
And I'm suing three organizations.
I've won against New York Times on MTD, which I think were one of eight people in 50 years to accomplish that.
And I hope to sue 100 more people.
And rather than attack us, maybe because, and I'm making an assumption, I think it's a safe assumption to make, because you fear the press so much, and you fear the power of Twitter and CNN working together.
What if we all banded together?
And what if we were not afraid of losing our Twitter accounts?
Can you imagine the power that we would have?
If we all told the truth and we were not scared of the New York Times disliking us, the moment when you stop caring about what Dean Baquet, who's just a guy like you or I, the executive editor of the New York Times, the moment you stop caring about Jeff Zucker and Dorsey and what they think about you and the power they have upon you, that's when you're finally free to tell the truth.
And I think William F. Buckley would be turning in his grave If he saw what that man McLaughlin said about Veritas last week.
I think part of it is just recognizing that we are in a little bit of wartime conservative mode.
This is actually not the old parlor game conservatism, you know, of the 1950s that we're in a fight for our basic liberties and the left is trying to shut us down.
Hey, James, thanks for coming on the podcast.
I really appreciate it. Thank you, Dinesh.
It's time for you to switch supplement brands.
I want to talk about Nutramedics, a professional supplement brand trusted by doctors since 1993 and now available to you.
What I like most about Nutramedics is our shared values.
Every year, they donate a minimum of 50% of their profits to global charities and missions.
That's right, 50% of profits.
Amazing. Hey, Debbie, I want you to come over and just say a little bit about how we use this.
Yeah, so I love that they have easy-to-swallow capsules, especially the vitamin C. I haven't been able to find anything like it.
My germophobia is pretty bad, and because of it, I don't want us to get sick.
So we take their immune support kit, which consists of the vitamin C, the vitamin DK, and zinc.
It gives our immune system the boost that it needs.
You can get 20% off by using the code Dinesh during checkout.
Go to Nutramedix.com and order the Immune Support Kit.
Support your health while helping charities and missions around the world.
Go to Nutramedix.com and use the code Dinesh for 20% off.
You might remember how several years ago, in fact, fairly shortly upon his election in 2008, Barack Obama went on a kind of, well, people called it a global apology tour.
Essentially, one stop after another, Obama was talking about the sins of the United States, which is a very odd thing to do, especially abroad.
It's kind of like going and telling other people about horrible things going on inside your own family.
And it's one thing to argue about those in the family and try to fix them one way or the other, but to put them on public parade is considered unseemly and for good reason.
Apparently, Biden and the Biden administration is marching in very much this Obama tradition.
So, something that I had described as coming out of, let's say, Obama's anti-colonial ideology, we're beginning to see this ideology now infecting the whole Democratic Party and the Democratic leadership.
Now, here's Biden's UN ambassador, her name is Linda Thomas-Greenfield, giving a recent talk where she's talking about, and this is our UN ambassador, talking about how white supremacy is the heart of the American founding.
Listen. I grew up in the segregated South.
I was bused to a segregated school.
On weekends, the Klan burned crosses on lawns in our neighborhood.
I shared these stories and others to acknowledge on the international stage that I have personally experienced one of America's greatest imperfections.
I've seen for myself how the original sin of slavery weaved white supremacy into our founding documents and principles.
Well, one thing that's missing from that statement right at the outset is this.
I belong to a party, the Democratic Party, that did all this to blacks.
I am voluntarily choosing now to join a party.
That became the official champion of the plantation, that defended the plantation, that went to war for the plantation, and that after slavery, embedded white supremacy into the institutions of the South.
I am a proud member of that party.
Notice that was kind of missing from the statement.
Instead she goes, it's America's sin, it's America.
So the blame here is a transference away from the Democratic Party, which actually did these things.
Remember, America, in a collective sense, doesn't do anything.
Some Americans do things and other Americans oppose them.
Even when we go back to the founding, the debates over slavery, there were people who were champions of slavery, there were people who were champions of anti-slavery.
And this was true going all the way back.
So you have here an attempt to blame America.
And it's not just her.
Here I have a statement from Secretary Antony Blinken.
Secretary of State, he goes, systematic racism is a stain on our nation's soul.
And then he talks about, in order to lead abroad, America must continue to address racial injustices and inequities at home.
So the idea here, again, blame America, but do it on the world stage.
Don't just do it domestically.
And this, of course, has brought the familiar conservative critique, which is to say, be careful, Democrats!
You're reducing American influence in the world.
You are making it easier for America's enemies to get an advantage.
You're trying to...
What you're doing, even though perhaps well-meaningly intended to highlight America's sins domestically, is going to have the effect of weakening America's influence globally.
So, this conservative doctrine, and we saw this with Obama too.
Whenever Obama would do stuff abroad, you'd have conservatives go, Obama doesn't understand.
Obama doesn't understand that subtracting from our own nuclear arsenal isn't going to cause other countries to do the same.
Obama doesn't understand that the Iran nuclear deal is a bad deal for us.
Yes, Obama understands.
That's why he's doing it.
So this is what's really hard for conservatives to grasp because we are so eager to impute well-meaning motives to the other side that we don't realize that not only are they conducting a culture war at home, but they want to reduce American influence abroad.
They want our enemies to be stronger relative to us.
Let's just apply that hypothesis to Obama himself.
If you remove the hypothesis, Obama's actions don't make any sense.
Obama seems almost like a kind of, you know, seven-year-old who has no idea what the effects of his actions are, and they're always counter to what he intends.
But if you assume that it was Obama's desire to weaken America, to weaken American interests, and then you look at what Obama did, let's look at a few things.
Whispering to Medvedev, I'll give you a better deal on the nukes after my re-election.
Go tell Putin, but let's not make it public right now until I can do that.
Number two, the Bergdahl arms trade.
We'll give you five seasoned Taliban commanders.
You give us one American deserter.
The Iran nuclear deal, the support for Mohamed Morsi, the Muslim Brotherhood candidate in Egypt in the aftermath of the Arab Spring.
All of these things, you simply use the operating premise, Obama wants to hurt America, and everything he does makes perfect sense.
And I think that same model has now transferred, not just regrettably, but I would say frighteningly, to the Biden administration.
When the economic times are crazy, when you've got scoundrels in the White House, when you got planned massive tax increases, regulatory increases, this is not good for the economy.
And there's only one way to protect your savings.
Do what over 10,000 other smart investors have and convert a portion of your retirement accounts into gold and silver with Birch Gold.
When inflation hits, and it seems like a will, gold and silver are your safe haven.
And Birch Gold Group is the company I trust to help you convert an IRA or eligible 401k into an IRA backed by gold and silver.
Now, through April 30th on qualifying purchases, when you buy physical gold or silver, as Debbie and I have, or open a precious metals IRA with Birch Gold, they will send you a free home safe.
Text Dinesh to 484848 for your free information kit on precious metals IRAs or to speak with a Birch Gold representative today.
With 10,000 customers and A-plus rating with the Better Business Bureau, countless 5-star reviews, hey, they can help you too.
Text Dinesh to 484848 for your free safe with qualifying purchase.
I talked last week about how Charles Darwin lost his faith.
And I thought to sort of give the other side of that coin, I would talk about the faith of Isaac Newton.
But Debbie said, you know, when you talk about these figures, you should explain to Nash kind of who they are and why they're important.
I thought to myself, maybe I'll introduce this topic by talking about why Newton is, in fact...
The greatest scientist of all time.
I think this is, in fact, the consensus of scientists.
But there's a rival candidate, of course, and that would be Einstein.
Because Einstein, it is well known, in some ways refined the theories of Newton.
Einstein was able to resolve some contradictions and anomalies in Newton's theories.
And so he developed, in relativity, his famous theory of relativity, general relativity, kind of a fuller But Einstein's achievement, although stunning in my opinion, is not as great as Newton's.
Why? Because in a sense what Einstein did, and let's talk about Einstein for a moment, essentially what Einstein did was he started out by doing, well, kind of a thought experiment.
Einstein didn't really do scientific experiments, quote, in the lab or even really in the world.
It shows you the way in which Einstein used scientific imagination to think about sort of this is the way the world must be.
So Einstein's thought experiment was something like this.
Consider a light beam that is moving alongside you.
And you have one guy who's standing still and measuring the speed of that light beam with a light meter, which is a device to do that.
And you get the speed of light.
And that speed is called C, which really is 186,000 miles a second in a vacuum.
So you're standing, let's just say, at a fixed point.
You measure this light beam and it measures light speed C. But now, says Einstein, what if you are in a spaceship running alongside that light beam, traveling, let's say, at half the speed of light?
And now, from your spaceship, you're measuring the speed of light.
What answer will you get?
Will you get half C? What is the answer?
And Einstein said, the answer you will get is speed C. In other words, you get the same answer.
Now think about it. You've got two people, one stationary, one moving.
They're measuring a light beam and they're measuring light at the same speed.
If that is true, says Einstein, then our traditional, our normal concepts of space and time don't really work.
We have to talk about space and time from a frame of reference.
You may say from your point of view, which may not be the same as my point of view, traveling in the spaceship at half the speed of light.
So Einstein's genius was to think of this and to spell out the implications of it.
But really, the concept of relativity itself Doesn't really come from Einstein.
People talk about, scientists talk about the theory of Galilean relativity.
And what does that mean? Well, here's what it means.
If you're sitting still, and let's just say, for example, drinking a cup of tea or eating some peanuts, the laws of physics obviously work.
You're sitting there and you're eating the peanuts, and the peanuts don't just fly in all directions.
You can kind of pop them into your mouth and so on.
Now, what if you're traveling in an airplane or in a train?
A train is moving 50 miles an hour.
Do you have to sort of calculate the train is moving 50 miles an hour, so since I'm eating the peanuts, I've got to take that into account because if I put a peanut in the air, it's going to fly away at 50 miles an hour.
I'm then going to have to move my mouth really quick.
No, you don't do that.
You act as if you're stationary.
You're sitting in your study.
You just eat the peanuts and you drink the tea.
And so the principle of Galilean relativity is it doesn't matter if you're standing still or you're moving fast or even moving rapidly.
Really fast, let's just say in a star that's moving away from the Earth at nearly the speed of light, you could still have tea.
You could still eat your peanuts.
In other words, the laws of physics are the same no matter what your state of motion.
And all that Einstein did, he took that idea for motion and he applied it to light, which is to say he applied it to electromagnetic waves.
Light is an electromagnetic wave.
Now, let's turn to Newton.
Because with Newton, we have genius, I would say, of a completely different level than Einstein.
Here's Newton, and of course, I want to show you a JPEG. This is kind of the popular understanding of Newton.
In this cartoon, he has Newton sitting under a tree, boink, an apple falls on his head, and he goes, wow, gravity!
No. If that was all it took to discover gravity, some caveman would have discovered that, you know, thousands of years earlier.
No. What Newton discovered is something far more profound.
Newton asked a very interesting question, which is based upon a discovery in modern physics that Newton himself did not make.
In fact, this was sort of made by Galileo.
And this is the idea that all objects, if you leave them alone...
The natural state of motion is not for an object to be at rest, which is what Aristotle thought.
The natural state for an object, any object in the world, in the universe, is to move at uniform speed in a straight line.
And the reason we don't see that, like for example, if you roll a ball, the truth of it is if there were no friction and there were no air resistance, that ball would move in a straight line at constant speed forever.
It is because of air resistance, it's because of friction, it's because of other forces that we don't realize that.
So here's Newton's question, kind of a stunning question, which is, here's the moon, and it is not attached to the Earth with a string.
So since all objects move In uniform motion, they move away at constant speed.
Why doesn't the moon fly away from the Earth?
Why does it stay there?
Why is it the case that the moon maintains, if you will, a kind of fixed orbit?
And Newton, sitting under the apple tree and seeing the apple fall, it occurred to him that he knew why that was the case.
And that is because the moon, which ordinarily would move away from the Earth at constant speed, is being pulled by a force.
And it's exactly the same force that's making the apple fall.
Except, the force is acting on the moon.
It's not strong enough to pull the moon into the earth, but it's strong enough to pull the moon so that the moon maintains its position relative to the earth.
So what Newton discovered ultimately is that gravity is a force that applies to all objects in the universe.
All objects, in a sense, are gravitationally drawn to each other by a force proportional, Newton says, to their mass.
And then Newton calculated the inverse square law.
What happens? Gravity weakens as objects are further away.
And Newton did all the numbers.
And then Newton figured out, how do I figure out the movements of other planetary bodies?
And Newton realized, I really can't do that.
I don't know how to do that.
And so Newton invented calculus.
In order to do that mathematics so he could answer those questions.
By the way, Leibniz had kind of independently invented calculus also.
So Newton and Leibniz are jointly credited with inventing calculus.
So the genius of Newton is he took this world of ours that was mysterious and he was able to show, he was able to identify one of the fundamental forces of nature.
Gravity. And this achievement, which only begins to describe what Newton accomplished, I think is the reason why it's Newton and not Einstein who deserves the title for world's greatest scientist.
Look, it doesn't matter what your politics are or who you voted for.
Everyone should have the right to express themselves freely.
The fact that there are some subjects we can't talk about is alarming.
Sadly, the big tech monopoly has instead opted for silencing tactics and censorship.
To fight back against big tech's control of the Internet?
I use ExpressVPN.
Ever wondered how free to access tech giants make all their money?
Well, by tracking your searches, video history, and everything you click on.
By building a profile on you and then selling off your sensitive data.
When you use the ExpressVPN app on your computer or phone, you anonymize much of your online presence by hiding your IP address.
That makes your activity more difficult to trace.
What's more, ExpressVPN encrypts 100% of your network data to protect you from eavesdroppers and cyber criminals.
What I like most is how easy it is to use.
It just takes one click to protect all your devices.
That's why ExpressVPN is rated number one by CNET and Wired.
Revoke big tech's right to your data.
Secure your internet with the VPN I trust for online protection.
Visit expressvpn.com slash dinesh.
That's ExpressVPN.com slash Dinesh to get three extra months free with my exclusive link.
Go to ExpressVPN.com slash Dinesh.
I want to talk about the faith of Isaac Newton.
It's important to know that while we today think of science and Christianity or science and religion as somehow at odds, we think of the typical scientist today as being a non-believer, an agnostic, or an outright atheist.
And some surveys have tended to support that when they look at members, for example, of the National Academy of Sciences.
Historically, however, if you make a list of all the greatest scientists of all time, let's just say the top 25, you'll discover that about 20 of them were not just believers, but were specifically Christians.
Here's a partial list.
Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Tycho Brahe, Descartes, Boyle, Newton, Leibniz, Gassendi, Pascal, Mersenne, Cuvier, Harvey, Dalton, Faraday,
Herschel, Jewell, Lyle, Lavoisier, Priestley, Kelvin, Ohm, Ampere, Steno, Louis Pasteur, Maxwell, Planck, Mendel.
Now, not only were these scientists Christian, but I mean, a number of them were ecclesiastics.
Gassendi and Mersenne were Catholic priests.
Georges Lemaître, the guy who put forward the theory of the Big Bang, which revolutionized our understanding of the beginning of the universe.
Was a Belgian priest?
Now, Newton was not a priest.
And it was thought for many years that, yeah, of course, Newton was a Christian because in those days most people were, and so his science had sort of nothing to do with his theology or his Christianity.
They just sort of operated sort of side by side.
But recent discoveries of Newton's manuscripts show that this is in fact not the case.
Starting Really, this goes back to now some 50 years ago when Newton Manuscripts first became available.
People began to see Newton.
They realized that this is a guy who wrote hundreds of thousands of words on science, but he literally wrote millions of words online.
He was particularly fascinated by...
He collected New Testament manuscripts.
He was fascinated by the ancient Israelites.
He was particularly fascinated by the book of Daniel.
He was really into biblical prophecy and millenarianism.
He wrote about the book of Revelation.
And here's the key point.
Not only did he do all that, but he saw his work in science and his work in theology as the same kind of work.
In other words, he saw both as an investigation into the meaning of things, into the meaning of nature, and the purpose of nature, and the workings of the universe, and why we have a universe.
So he was motivated by scientific research.
Curiosity, you may almost say, in the broadest sense.
He was even fascinated by early church history.
And he began to think about, and we find in his writings, that he writes about how God operates in the universe.
Now, this is very important because when we think of Newton, we think about Well, the history of science has popularized this concept that is called the clockwork universe.
Supposedly, Newton invented this concept.
He really didn't, but supposedly he did.
And the idea is that God is sort of this great clockmaker.
So he winds up the clock, and then he lets it go, and the clock kind of runs on its own.
And apparently scientific descriptions are supposed to be the workings of the clock.
Now quite frankly, when you really think about this, this is all abysmally stupid.
And I say stupid because a scientific equation doesn't make anything happen.
If I see two balls bouncing over here and two balls bouncing over here, I can write two plus two equals four on a piece of paper.
But my writing it down isn't making the balls bounce.
The writing is merely a description of the event.
It doesn't cause the event.
This is actually a fallacy.
A lot of people think that laws cause things to happen.
No. Laws are merely a description of what is already happening.
And Newton's point is that things don't happen on their own.
So this idea of the clockwork universe would make Newton into sort of a deist, a god who sort of is an absentee landlord.
He sort of winds up the universe and he then takes off.
All you have to do is glimpse into Newton's writing to see that Newton does not believe this.
This is not his point of view at all.
So Newton says, for example, and I'm now quoting from a letter that he wrote to Boyle, he says that even if the waywardness of a comet...
So there goes a comet.
Boom. He goes, yeah, that comet could be the result of some accidental...
Or, as he says, it could be a chance event that the comet happens to come now and it happens to come in this way.
But he goes, that's not true of planetary motions.
When you look, for example, at the movement of the planets and the stars, he goes, there is a regularity, an order...
You may almost say a pattern to it that suggests celestial design.
And not only does Newton say that God created this, he goes, it doesn't function without the constant supervision of God.
So God is not some absentee landlord who winds up the clock.
God is actually the guy who's essentially the guarantor, the conserver, if you will, the maintainer and preserver of the regularity of the laws of nature as they are.
For example, Newton says there is no way.
He says the idea...
That somehow gravity is a, quote, inherent property of bodies.
They just are that way.
They just attract each other because that's the way it is.
Newton says when he thinks about that, he goes, it is, quote, so great an absurdity that I believe no man who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking...
So in other words, Newton, who thought more deeply about gravity than perhaps anyone else, says that you can't merely impute these qualities to inanimate matter.
Some deeper explanation for them is demanded by the situation.
I'm looking at Newton's General Scolium to the Principia Mathematica.
Again, this is not a theological work.
This is Newton's primary scientific work.
And when I read it, it goes on and on and there's all this discussion about God and the nature of God.
I'm just going to read a couple of sentences so you can kind of get a feeling of how Newton thinks because it runs so counter to this idea of the clockwork universe.
This is Newton, I'm quoting him now.
This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion, dominion means control, of an intelligent and powerful being.
This being governs all things as Lord over all.
From his true dominion it follows that the true God is a living, intelligent, and powerful being, and from his other perfections that he is supreme, almost perfect.
He is eternal and infinite, omnipotent and omniscient.
That is, his duration reaches from eternity to eternity.
His presence from infinity to infinity.
He governs all things and knows all things that are or can be done.
He is not eternity or infinity.
He's not some abstract God.
That's my addition. He goes, He is not eternity and infinity, but eternal and infinite.
He is not duration and space.
God isn't just an extension of the universe.
But He endures and is present.
He endures forever and is everywhere present.
We know Him only by His most wise and excellent contrivances of things.
And on and on it goes. But here is Newton.
Speaking about not only, quote, his personal belief in a deity, but his deeper sense that the common root of his theological investigations and his scientific investigations is the same,
namely... To identify, marvel at, and worship the God who made all things and to see that God in the universe, which is his most excellent handiwork.
Yes, the company is called MyPillow.
I sometimes think it should be called MyRobe or MyTowels.
We love all of Mike Lindell's products, but we especially love his towels.
Debbie and I are really particular about our towels.
We actually want them to dry us.
What a concept! MyPillow towels are soft to the touch without the lotiony feel.
Proprietary technology makes them highly absorbent.
Other towels Feel good but don't really absorb.
MyPillow towels are available in multiple styles and sizes.
Machine washable and durable.
10-year warranty. 60-day money-back guarantee.
Now for a limited time, two-for-one, low price and free shipping on six-piece sets or save 30% on individual towel options with promo code Dinesh.
Go to 800-876-0227 or go to MyPillow.com but make sure to use promo code D-I-N-E-S-H Dinesh.
It's time for our audio question, and hey, if you have a question, send it in to questiondinesh at gmail.com.
I prefer audio or video.
Let's go to today's question.
Listen. Dinesh, my name is Mike.
Thank you for taking my question, which is...
One would think that many people in the United States, especially Latinos, would like to know the news of what's going on south of the U.S. border, not just Mexico, but all of Central America and, of course, of South America. One would think that a news show could easily put together one hour worth of news, which with commercials would be approximately only 40 minutes, in English, telling us what
is going on south of the border. Yet, nothing like that exists on TV. I believe there would be quite an audience for it. I wanted your take on why that does not exist. Does the US government not want us to know? Well, I mean, the good news is I happen to have a Latino authority on this subject right here in the studio.
My indomitable producer and wife, Debbie.
So I would actually call her in.
Honey, do you mind ducking in here?
Would you answer for today?
He wants to know if there's been...
Well, you heard him. Yeah, I did.
So I don't know if you're aware of this, but we do have a publication called El American.
That is a bilingual publication and it literally has all the news from South America, Central America, Mexico, all of it in one place.
It's called Lamerican.com.
I am a columnist for Lamerica.
I do a lot of Of op-eds on Venezuela and some Central America and Mexico stories as well.
But this publication wants to eventually become a news organization, as you're mentioning.
And so it would be a place where people can go to find out what people are thinking or doing south of the border.
And to be honest, a lot of people south of the border are just as concerned about America as we are.
Because what happens in America really does impact Central and South America.
So this is a great place for you to go.
Lamerican.com.
Check it out. And you'll be surprised.
All the things that you will learn about south of the border.
Kind of a conservative answer to Univision or Telemundo.
It's just a different point of view.
It represents a more conservative perspective about South America and Latin America.
So check it out. Lamerican.com Subscribe to the Dinesh D'Souza podcast on Apple, Google, and Spotify.
▲
Export Selection