All Episodes
Previous Next
May 6, 2021 - Dinesh D'Souza
58:26
RUN, CAITLYN, RUN Dinesh D’Souza Podcast Ep 84
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Run, Caitlyn Jenner, run.
How Koch found out it's not so good to be woke.
And Hillary Clinton's back, and I'm ready.
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.
I'm actually really excited about Caitlyn Jenner throwing her hat, if I can say that, into the gubernatorial race in California.
Why? Because I think that she really has a chance.
California, of course, is this deep blue state.
It never used to be.
It used to be, well, Nixon country and Reagan country.
It also used to be, by the way, a beautiful and well-run state.
It's really sad to see the way in which the left and the Democrats have really destroyed America's most beautiful state.
It was a state which had a sort of mythology attached to it, a kind of romance attached to it.
California Dreaming, California Girls.
I remember when I first saw San Diego with the airplane coming down and I was like, wow, this is probably the closest thing to the Garden of Eden here on the earth.
But that's not today's California.
And the reason for it is a failure of political leadership, not just, of course, at the gubernatorial level, but all the way with the legislature and the DAs and so on.
So California has become rotted in terms of its political leadership.
And today the symbol of California is totally different.
Large parts of California sort of run like a third world country.
I mean, just try to walk on a street in L.A. these days.
You're going to see shanties.
I mean, I feel like I'm on a set for Slumdog Millionaire, but it's not Hollywood.
This is the real Los Angeles.
You go to San Francisco, I mean, you see people defecating on the street.
I grew up seeing people defecating on the street.
I guess if I ever get really nostalgic for my childhood in Bombay, I just need to go to San Francisco.
And there it is.
So this is a...
California is now a mess.
And you see it in small ways and large.
I mean, I now live in Texas.
You walk into the Texas...
I mean, first of all, if you go to the DMV in California, you should sort of plan on all day.
Take the day off. Why?
Because it's such a horribly run operation.
You walk into the DMV in Texas, and remember, we're talking about government agencies in both cases, but nevertheless, there is a difference between a decently run government agency and a badly run one.
In Texas, you're in and out What?
30 minutes? Maybe 40 minutes at the most.
So, this is today's California.
Now, it's not easy for a Republican to win in California.
I guess the last one was, you know, Arnold Schwarzenegger.
And I gotta say that, you know, as an immigrant, like Arnold, it's kind of impressive to have a guy running a state whose name he couldn't pronounce.
I am the governor of California!
So this was kind of amazing.
And it was inspiring.
The problem for Arnold, I think, was that he couldn't get anything done.
And that's going to be a challenge even if Caitlyn makes it.
You've got a democratic legislature through and through.
So the governor can do some things.
Maybe the governor can sort of arrest the apocalypse, slow it down, at least help things go downhill a little better, a little more slowly.
And Arnold, of course, came to a bad end.
Sort of terminated his career.
Hasta la vista, baby!
But now it's Caitlyn Jenner's turn.
Now, with Caitlyn Jenner, she put out an amazing, very good ad, by the way, that kind of lays out the problem, lays out her vision for America.
It seems like she still dreams a kind of California dream.
Here's a short clip of that.
Listen. I've always been a dreamer.
California was once the envy of the world.
We had what everyone else wanted.
The American dream grew up here.
Yet career politicians and their policies have destroyed that dream.
It's been locked away, closed, shuttered, Left in the dark, burned down.
The government is now involved in every part of our lives.
They've taken our money, our jobs, and our freedom.
It's actually a really good ad.
Very inspiring. I mean, I have to confess, I'm not 100% comfortable with even the concept of Caitlyn Jenner.
One thing I find really interesting about the ad, by the way, is that Caitlyn doesn't seem to repudiate her past.
And so in the ad, you've got Bruce Jenner, and he's winning the decathlon, and the crowd is cheering.
And so it appears like Caitlyn Jenner is sort of saying, well, that's me too.
It's not the idea that sort of, you know, I've always been a woman in a man's body, and it was really a woman who won the decathlon, Dinesh.
No, it It appears to be I was Bruce Jenner.
I'm now Caitlyn Jenner.
And so there's an affirmation here of a sort of changed identity.
Caitlyn Jenner has always been a Republican.
Well, Bruce was too. And in the interview that she did recently with Hannity, she talks about the fact that she's for Trump.
She's for the wall.
She does talk about being compassionate, the importance, for example, of having some solution for illegals who have been in this country a long time, whose children have grown up here, some way of dealing with all that.
Very strikingly, Caitlyn Jenner has come out against trans men participating in women's sports.
And I think because of her own status as a sort of canonical sports figure, maybe one of the most This is a very important stance.
And of course, it's drawn some attacks from trans activists because this is a very important issue for them.
They don't mind wiping out women's sports.
They want to affirm the idea that you can have men, biological men, who nevertheless have all the rights of being a woman.
Use the women's bathroom, participate in women's sports, and so on.
I mean, the whole concept for me, as I say, is hard to get my head around.
I try to think of myself. What if I, you know, claim suddenly that I'm no longer Dinesh?
You know, I'm now, you know, Delfina D'Souza.
Or if I should use an Indian name, you know, I'm Indira D'Souza.
And suddenly I'm like number third in the U.S. Olympic trials and the women's 100-yard dash.
And I'm now the women's world chess champion.
I mean, that'd be sort of rolling her eyes here because I think she's thinking, what happens to me?
What happens to our situation?
Stop. Anyway, she's telling me to stop.
Look, I'm all the way behind Caitlyn Jenner because, well, number one, Gavin Newsom is just such a horror.
He's a disgrace. He's an embarrassment.
He's contributed, at the very least, to the destruction of a beautiful state.
If Caitlyn Jenner can run a strong race, can win over some Democratic votes, can win...
It is only going to be to the good not just of California, but of the nation.
It seems that Coke is having some second thoughts about going woke.
Now, one question is, how do these companies, like Coca-Cola, like Delta, how do they go woke in the first place?
We sometimes think it's purely a decision by the CEO or decided by senior management, but I don't think so.
I think what's happened is that we have seen an energized left, particularly among younger people.
These are people who have come out of colleges and universities, let's just say over the last 10 to 15 years.
And these are people who have been mobilized in resistance to Trump and Trumpism.
And so what they are determined to do is to pressure their employers from within to become instruments of leftist activism.
We see this in the publishing industry, where suddenly conservatives have a hard time publishing in mainstream publishing, not because there aren't sympathetic editors who want to do it, but because there's this kind of woke coalition that threatens to walk out and quit and refuse to show up at work, and so they're pressuring management from within.
I bet you something like this has been happening at Koch, and especially at Koch.
Why?
Because, you know, the head of Koch, this guy, CEO James Quincy, he's a British guy.
I mean, he's probably sitting in, you know, at having the Savoy Hotel in London, and he's probably eating finger sandwiches, cucumber sandwiches, and tea, and he's probably thinking, what is this bloody nonsense going on in America?
I have to say all kinds of stupid things!
But, you know, but he's doing it because he's obliged to do it.
But I don't really know if he wants to, if he wants to do it.
But nevertheless, Coke really decided to go woke, probably over the objections of James Quincy.
Those Yankees are bloody cracked!
But nevertheless, he's playing along.
That's his job. And so what did Coke do?
They have, first of all... They got involved with this Facebook and Instagram campaign to get Donald Trump deplatformed.
They also started a massive diversity program in which they would only do business if you had like 30% minority ownership.
They took it to such an extent that they hired this guy, Bradley Gaten, a kind of a left-wing fanatic.
And this guy established a plan in which Cope would not do business with law firms.
Unless the law firms were, quote, diverse.
They had to have at least half of their attorneys be black.
So this is carrying the diversity issue to kind of an insane level.
And then finally, Koch jumps right into the Georgia voter integrity campaign, issues a statement in which, again, this is...
This is James Quincy, which was a statement that basically said that he was totally opposed to the Georgia law.
He wanted to speak unequivocally against it.
And so this was Koch really behaving as if it were some kind of a left-wing lobbying outfit and not a mainstream global company.
Now, very recently, two remarkable developments have occurred at Koch.
So first, Koch has issued a new statement, which is very different in tone.
We now believe the best way to make progress is for everyone to come together and listen, respectfully share concerns, and collaborate on a path forward.
We remain open to productive conversations.
It's time to find common ground.
In the end, we all want the same thing.
Free and fair elections, the cornerstone of our democracy.
Now, this kind of statement is anathema to the left.
They would never go with it.
And so, I'm sure there was vociferous objections, particularly by this kook Bradley Gaten.
And so, Koch basically goes...
Bradley Gaten, it's time to say bye-bye.
And so Coke essentially terminated this Bradley Gaten character.
He had a big fat package, so he's going to be fine.
He's going to sort of sail off in his yacht.
But nevertheless, he's been taken off the job, you might say.
And the new person who's come in his place has suspended the diversity program.
A statement that she made was, she said, basically, we're going to, quote, re-evaluate all this stuff.
I think Koch has basically realized that, number one...
They're in a state, Georgia, that although it now has two Democratic senators, it's a red state, and it has a state legislature that doesn't take kindly to this kind of political activism, that in fact is willing to penalize Koch, even on all kinds of tax breaks that have been given to Koch, if Koch wants to keep this up.
And then as a major company, why would you want to antagonize half the country?
Why would you want to turn off a lot of people, some of whom presumably drink Coke?
I'm not really sure why, but nevertheless they do, and they like it.
And so Coke has potential customers.
Do you want to take your base of 330 million Americans and cut it down to 150 right off the top?
I mean, what could be dumber?
And I'm sure at some level James Quincy sort of knows that.
This is really dumb. But, you know, my American kooks are making me do it.
But he's had enough.
And I think his team has had enough.
And so Koch has made a collective decision to kind of pull back from being woke.
And I think that's a welcome development.
It means that this is not a done deal.
We conservatives don't just have to bemoan these developments.
It shows also that we need to counter the woke activism within companies that we're part of.
Why? Why? To neutralize the pressure that's coming from the other side.
And in this way, Coke can provide a kind of sobering example of the painful costs, political but also economic, if you as Coke decide to go woke.
So here's the latest.
Vimeo has canceled Mike Lindell's MyPillow account for violating Vimeo's terms of service and community guidelines, the usual bogus pretext.
Mike says this is worse than Twitter because it affects his business, the Lindell Recovery Network for addicts, and the entrepreneurs he works with.
We need to support Mike Lindell.
Debbie and I, we love his pillows, but we also love all his other products.
We've gotten the robes, the dog beds, the throws, the blankets, the towels, and the sheets.
Right now, Mike is offering buy one, get one free on his sheet sets.
He's 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 Geyser Dream bedsheets are made with this long staple cotton.
Mike guarantees, I guarantee, they'll be the most comfortable sheets you ever own.
The first night you sleep on them, you'll never want to sleep on anything else.
Now, the Geyser 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.
Right now, buy one, get one free by calling 800- 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.
Make sure to use promo code Dinesh.
I've talked on this podcast about critical race theory and the efforts on the part of the left to push this not only in the universities but also in the schools.
Now, there's a very interesting story out of South Lake, Texas, about a group of parents and citizens who organized in resistance to this kind of ideological indoctrination.
I'm very happy to have on the podcast Hannah Smith.
She's a distinguished attorney.
She clerked for both Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, and she is a newly elected member of Southlake school board.
Hannah, thanks for coming on the podcast.
I really appreciate it.
I want you to tell us the story of what happened in South Lake, Texas.
So, Let's just begin by asking, how did this effort to impose, you may say, critical race theory, ideological indoctrination, who cooked up that recipe for the school district and how did the left work to push that forward?
Thank you so much for having me.
It's really wonderful to be on your show.
Back in 2018, there was an off-campus video that went viral on social media.
It was some kids after a homecoming dance.
At a party, at a private residence, and they unfortunately chose to use the N-word.
And in that video, when it went viral, that really was the catalyst for the beginning of this process.
Then there was about a two-year process where the District Diversity Council met, came up with this plan, but unfortunately some administrators pushed down into the plan some really radical theories, including critical race theory.
So fast forward to August 3rd of 2020 in the board meeting of the trustees of our school district, and they tried to push this plan, a 34-page plan, into effect in our school district.
Luckily, the community pushed back, and here we are.
Well, let's start with this anatomy of how this got started because it seems to me a very classic case.
You've got an incident, presumably, I don't know if it was one kid or two kids who say something that they shouldn't say.
And this is sort of, I assume, without any evidence taken to be representative of a kind of entrenched racism in the community.
I mean, I want to kind of marvel for a moment here before even getting into the resistance at kind of the left's Kind of bogus ingenuity in inferring a systemic problem from what is obviously a stray anecdote.
Isn't that what they did?
I think that's right. You know, I mean, there's always going to be kids that make choices that you wouldn't want them to make.
And I'm not saying that there are no incidences of racism anywhere in our school district.
I think, you know, things happen.
Kids are kids. And it's unfortunate because I don't think anyone should be treated that way.
But unfortunately, you know, this incident, which took place completely off campus after school hours in a private residence, was used to, you know, We're good to go.
Well, first and foremost, they wanted to track and punish microaggressions, and they defined microaggressions as unintentional or intentional offenses that are completely subjective from the point of view of the alleged victim.
So if someone was offended by something that you said, even if you didn't intend it to be You could be punished for a so-called microaggression.
And as an attorney, that's really problematic because that infringes on free speech, right?
And more importantly, it chills speech because kids are just not going to talk anymore about anything related to race or anything related to any of these sensitive topics because they're worried they're going to get punished.
In addition to that, there were really, I think, invasive teacher trainings that probably violate Title VII and That asked teachers to identify characteristics of white culture.
They wanted to implement a performance review where the administration would judge whether or not teachers were sufficiently woke in order to keep their jobs.
They wanted to do audits of all of the student clubs, including the religious student clubs, to make sure they were culturally competent.
And if they weren't, they were going to kick them off campus.
So those are just a few of the highlights.
But again, there were a lot of things that were problematic about this plan.
Now, Hannah, who is driving this when you say they?
Was this a kind of a coalition of, was it some school board members and some teachers and some administrators?
How does the left kind of put its operation together to drive this forward?
Because I'm pretty sure it's happening all over the country.
In that sense, Southlake is a sort of symbol for the country at large.
So talk to us a little bit about who was driving this on the other side.
That's a great question. So the District Diversity Council was convened.
It had about 60 members, parents, community members, others that were included, teachers, some students.
And that met for two years.
And the committee was divided into subgroups.
So they had subcommittees that did their own work pretty much siloed off from each other.
So they didn't know what the other committees were doing.
And the administration then pushed things into the plan. About 50% of the plan was actually written by about two or three administrators that were senior administrators in our district. And so finally, after they put all of the subcommittee recommendations and the administration's recommendations into this 34-page plan, the District Diversity Council really had never seen the entire plan all together until just like a week before it was presented to the school board.
So it was really a flawed process.
And I think a lot of people on the District Diversity Council would never have agreed to everything that was actually in the plan, but the administration pushed it through nonetheless.
Hey, this sounds a little bit like the way they function in Congress.
When we come back, I'm going to now turn to the mobilization on the conservative side, because it seems to me this is something that could also be a model for ways to fight back against this kind of indoctrination.
We'll be right back. Hey, do you take supplements?
Let me tell you about Nutramedix, a professional supplement brand trusted by doctors since 1993 and now available to you.
What I like most about Nutramedix 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. I love that they have easy-to-swallow capsule vitamins.
Debbie and I don't want to get sick, so we take their immune support kit.
Here, take a look. It consists of vitamin C, D, K, and zinc.
It gives our immune system the boost it needs.
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, N-U-T-R-A-M-E-D-I-X.com and use the code Dinesh for 20% off.
Back with Attorney Hannah Smith, newly elected member of the Southlake, Texas School Board.
Hannah, this is a Trump county.
Trump won pretty cleanly.
But what I find kind of remarkable is that in the recent elections, not just for school board, but city council and mayor, The left was so decisively defeated, 70-30, that those margins were even bigger than the Trump margins.
So this is what I now want to get into is, what is it that you were able to do in conjunction with others to organize a campaign that convinced the citizens and presumably maybe even a few Democrats that, you know what guys, this is not something we want in our school district.
How did that work? Yeah, you're exactly right.
So last fall, we started doing a series of open records requests to our district, and we asked for specific documents that revealed the extent of the problem in our schools.
And we used that information to come up with a newspaper that we sent to the entire community, Republicans, Democrats, everyone.
And this newspaper really outlined all of the problems with the CCAP. It outlined some of the things that our district had done To try and implement the CCAP, some of the teacher trainings that also highlighted some anonymous quotes from our teachers saying we really don't want this plan in our district.
And so we sent this newspaper out to the entire community.
And then we also just started doing a lot of community education.
You know, I asked for speakers to come in and we did some webinars online, you know, really educating our community about what critical race theory is and why it's so problematic.
And then, you know, once the election started, we just did a lot of grassroots work.
You know, we raised a lot of money and we went door to door.
We did mailers.
We hosted over 70 meet and greets with people in our community.
So there was just a huge effort to really educate people.
And to get out the vote.
And we had people vote in this election who have never voted in a municipal election ever before.
We had record turnout.
Usually a municipal election is about 3,500 voters.
We had 10,000 voters show up for this race.
So it was really a remarkable experience seeing a community that was kind of asleep.
They were not really paying attention to what was happening in our district.
And then finally they woke up and they showed up and they made history.
Well, I think it's really important to highlight what I see as two key elements in what you've described.
Because a lot of people feel like we need to fight, we need to organize, but they don't know fight how, organize in what way.
And it seems to me that the first thing you said was the importance of collecting information and doing it through so that you actually have the goods.
You're not just going out there and saying this is bad.
You've documented what's wrong with you.
You've made your case.
And the second part of it, of course, is to market your campaign, to get your case out.
And that takes resources and it takes organization.
So it looks like in Southlake...
Now, was there sort of a group that you put together?
How did you get this nucleus?
Did you have a political campaign consultant?
What was the meat and potatoes of putting this on the ballot and beating the other side at a game in which it So we did form a PAC called the Southlake Families PAC. And that PAC was really instrumental in helping galvanize the community.
And they organized into committees and had people help them, you know, get out the message.
Both via a communication strategy and via a grassroots campaign.
So that pack was really helpful.
We also just had a lot of very concerned citizens on a Facebook group.
We created a Facebook page, a private Facebook group where people shared things that they were finding in the schools.
We shared what we were finding with open records requests.
So we had sort of a multi-pronged approach Where we had the help of the pack and just a really great ground game.
Now, the other side, very typically, particularly in this kind of situation, always goes to the race card.
Oh, the other side is racist, so their only motive for opposing us is because they're bigots.
I'm sure you heard some of that, or that was flung at your side.
And my question is, I think very valuable for conservatives, how do you respond to Because it seems to me, and we see this a little bit in Congress, Republicans run for cover because they're kind of scared of this accusation.
Companies are scared of this accusation.
How did you, as a group, deal with the inevitable, familiar, tiresome, but nevertheless kind of effective accusation, you're just a bunch of racists?
Well, we did have that card played on us multiple times.
You know, all five candidates were put on a social media meme and blasted out via Twitter by a local high school student group called the Southlake Anti-Racist Coalition.
They tweeted out on the Tarrant County Democrats tweet page That all five of us were racist.
So we did have that definitely in this campaign.
I think what we tried to do is we tried to turn that back on them and say, look, you are actually the racist.
You are the ones who want to look at everyone based on the color of their skin.
What we are advocating is for Color blindness.
We're advocating for equal opportunity for everyone, regardless of the color of their skin.
But what you are advocating for is actually looking at skin color and using it to forward your equity agenda.
So we kind of turned it back on them and said, actually, we're not the racist you are.
I think this is actually very critical because you're saying you didn't go on the defensive and go, no, we're not racist or we're not really all that racist.
You basically turned the camera on them and said, listen, you're the guys who are trying to inflict racial identification, racial discrimination.
You're doing exactly the same thing that was done in America's racist history.
You might think that there's a different set of oppressors and oppressed, but the truth of it is you're performing the same ugly transaction that you supposedly deplore.
That's exactly right.
And the point that I made on a couple of occasions is they were really trying to undo all of the gains that we made during the Civil Rights era.
They were trying to undo the Civil Rights Act and Title VII and all of these things that say that you can't use race or ethnicity in any way to, you know, harm anyone, especially teachers in our schools. You know, you can't use race to hire, you can't use race in trainings for teachers on the job. And they wanted to just undo all of that. So I just was very clear in saying, look, we have very protective laws on the books that say you cannot use race under any circumstances in these
situations. And you're trying to undo that. And that's not right.
And it's great. Thank you for coming on the podcast.
If I could make one suggestion at the close, it's that someone write up a kind of simple manual of how this was done in Southlake and make it available online, because I think there's going to be a lot of interest around the country.
There are probably a lot of parents that are kind of feeling their way about how to resist in these kinds of situations.
And in a sense, you have now become part of the Tip of the spear in showing an effective way to fight back.
So congratulations. Thanks for coming on.
And I hope it becomes a model for things going on around the country.
Thank you so much. I've been on Hillary Clinton's trail for a long time in my film, Hillary's America.
I detail the dangers she posed to our country.
Fortunately, the American people got the message.
But there's still more that must be done to reveal the ugly truth behind the Clintons, the Clinton Foundation.
And their corrupt ways, especially since the Biden family seems to view the Clintons' example as a how-to guide.
You won't find the truth about Hillary in today's fake news media.
You have to turn to a powerful source like Capitol Research Center.
My friends at Capitol Research Center exposed the left like no one else can.
Now they've released an eye-opening new report that lays bare the corruption of the Clinton crime family.
It's called By Hook or By Crook.
Want to read it? Then go to capitalresearch.org slash Dinesh.
That's C-A-P-I-T-A-L, capitalresearch.org slash Dinesh.
You'll get the chance to order a free copy of By Hook or By Crook and learn the facts the mainstream media won't touch.
So again, that's capitalresearch.org slash Dinesh.
I'm trying to make sense of what is going on with Liz Cheney.
I think that she is on the verge of being booted as the number three Republican in the House.
And this is, by the way, a very remarkable shift from just...
Several weeks ago when there was a vote aimed at removing her from the leadership, and it failed miserably.
Liz Cheney won decisively, which is all a kind of way of saying that there were Republicans who thought, well, you know, if you wanted to impeach Trump and if you are anti-Trump, that doesn't mean you cease to be a Republican.
In fact, it doesn't even mean you cease to be in the leadership.
But something dramatic has changed.
So what has changed?
Well, Here's one little indication, a recent statement by Nancy Pelosi supporting Liz Cheney.
Listen. I do commend Lynn Cheney for her courage, for her patriotism, and I wish her well.
Perhaps this challenge will make her stronger.
Well, if you're going to endorse someone, you might as well get their name right.
It's not Lynn Cheney.
It's Liz Cheney.
But what do you call this from Nancy Pelosi?
Well, I call it the kiss of death.
Why? Because you don't want to have the leader of the opposition party saying how fantastic you are.
Why? Because to decode that statement, what Nancy Pelosi is saying is, I'd love to have political This is sort of like having a house pet.
You know, I like this token opposition because I know I can run roughshod over her.
This is not the kind of Republican I'm afraid of.
Give me more Liz Cheney's.
Give me fewer, you know, Matt Getz's.
Give me fewer Steve Scalise's.
And so the Republican Party has realized that, wait a minute, who's our real opponent here?
And I think this is the heart of the matter.
The opponent isn't Trump.
The opponent is Biden.
And look at all the stuff the Biden administration is doing.
Economic confiscation, attacks on our basic civil liberties, the attempt to, you know, programs that if implemented would bankrupt the country, efforts to create a permanent Democratic majority by rigging the rules, packing the court.
And what's Liz Cheney talking about?
She's talking about the Republican Party needs to get beyond Trump.
Now, Liz Cheney, you'd think she'd be lobbying her associates to defeat this effort to get rid of her, but it seems that she's digging in.
She's almost defiantly taking the stance that, you can get rid of me, but that's going to be an indictment of you, not of me.
And I'm looking at this article from the Washington Post, you know, the GOP is at a turning point.
History is watching us.
So evidently, Liz Cheney has suddenly become some kind of, at least in her own mind, totemic figure because what happens to her will determine the fate of the party and the fate of the country.
I think this stuff about history is judging us is pure nonsense.
In fact, it's generally what people say when they've lost the argument.
It's basically the idea that, listen, I cannot persuade anybody in front of me.
I cannot persuade members of my own party.
In fact, I cannot persuade any living person in the United States.
So I will appeal to people not yet born.
People not yet born are going to be on my side because they're going to see objectively that I was right.
Now, Liz Cheney's big rant is about the election.
Trump still won't give up on the election.
We've got to get beyond these election lies, the big lie.
Now, the problem with all this is I think that the vast majority of Republicans, and I count myself in this number, Well, on this issue, we have to be somewhat agnostic.
And why? Because we don't have full information.
We say, wait a minute, why is it that the election count was sort of coincidentally suspended in five swing states at exactly the same time?
Could that be something that just happened?
Did somebody give the order?
Who made that occur?
That is very abnormal behavior, and yet it happened not once, not twice, but in all the key places and nowhere else.
And second, this strange atmosphere of censorship that surrounds discussion of the issue.
When you find that people don't want you to talk about something, it's usually because they've got something to hide.
And so the idea here is it's not even an issue of is there election fraud?
It's why can't we...
Talk about election fraud.
Is that because there's something you don't want us to know?
Is there something you want to keep from public light?
So this is really what's going on.
I think the problem at the end of the day for Liz Cheney, and by the way, this is sort of also the problem for the Bushes, Is that there's a family grudge that they can't get over.
I mean, for the Bushes, it's really obvious.
It's a grudge over Trump's treatment of Jeb Bush.
I mean, Trump didn't just defeat Jeb Bush.
He sort of humiliated him.
He made him look bad.
You know, low-energy Jeb.
So Jeb suddenly comes across as sort of a twerp.
And this, for the family, was a grave and I would say unforgivable insult in their behavior since then, as kind of shown it.
Same with Liz Cheney.
I think at the end of the day, she's very angry at Trump for having presented the Cheneys, and particularly Dick Cheney, as kind of a warmonger.
And for this, she can't forgive Trump.
She can't get over it.
I mean, it's to Ted Cruz's great credit that even though there was acrimony between him and Trump, he's transcended it.
He has, in a sense, risen above it, which is an amazing and beautiful thing to see.
But there are lots of people who can't do it, and they haven't done it.
And so here's Liz Cheney, and she's fighting a fight the Republicans don't want.
Even other Republicans who voted against Trump.
Who don't like Trump are like, we're sort of done with Liz Cheney.
Why? Because we need to unify against Biden.
We need to unify against the left.
Look at what they're trying to do to us.
We have a narrow window of getting our act together before the midterms.
And in this fight, it's very obvious that Liz Cheney is not an asset.
She's a major liability.
And that is why she has to go.
As the left's pressure mounts for student debt forgiveness, more stimulus checks, expanded unemployment benefits, and a $2 trillion infrastructure plan, the question comes to mind, who's going to pay for this?
What's the effect on the economy?
Clearly the Biden administration thinks they're playing with monopoly money.
Listen, if all your investments are tied to greenbacks, you're sitting on a little bit of a ticking time bomb, invest a portion of your savings in gold and silver.
Birch Gold Group is the company I purchased from.
This is the company you can trust to convert an IRA or eligible 401k into an IRA backed by gold and silver.
That's right, through a little known tax loophole, you can convert your retirement savings that's tied to the stock market into an IRA backed by precious metals.
It's your hedge against inflation and government irresponsibility.
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, an A plus rating with the Better Business Bureau and countless five-star reviews, Birch Gold can help you too.
Text Dinesh to 484848 and invest in gold before it's too late.
Hillary Clinton is back with her trademark cackle.
And this time, she's speaking out, well, I would say in favor of increased digital censorship.
Listen. There must be a reckoning by the tech companies for the role that they play in undermining the information ecosystem that is absolutely essential for the functioning of any democracy.
If you get to a point, and we are, if not there, very close to it Where you cannot have agreement on facts, on evidence, on truth, how does a democracy make decisions?
And what we've got in the tech world on social media platforms is an algorithm driven conspiracy rabbit hole that people are enticed to go down and then addicted because it is like watching constant car crashes.
You cannot turn away.
And as someone who has been accused of practically everything you could possibly imagine, I know how powerful this is.
I have been accused of practically everything.
everything. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
Wow. Wow, wow, wow, is all I can say.
Well, this requires a little bit of translation, because Hillary is making a sort of an argument here.
An argument is sort of based on three parts.
The first part is this, and this is its premise.
We must be able to agree on facts, evidence, and truth for democracy to work.
She goes, we're almost at the point where we can't agree.
And she goes, since we must agree, these digital platforms are remiss in not enforcing that agreement.
They have these algorithms that are sort of profit-driven and they're allowing these rabbit holes and conspiracies to flourish.
And then, later on, this is not in the clip, but she goes on to say that she wants the government to step in, not to defend free speech, to pressure the digital companies to undermine free speech more.
In other words, to have, I guess, some system for making sure that we agree.
Now, if you think about what she's saying, she is basically speaking the...
Bye.
Sound of despotism.
Because in no institution, in American life at all, is there this kind of enforced agreement.
Think of, for example, a legal trial.
Can you imagine if the judge said at the beginning, before we get any further, I want to make sure there's complete agreement on the facts, the evidence, and the truth.
In other words, I don't even accept the legitimacy that there are two sides to the case.
Or imagine in an academic situation, if a professor were to say, before we even start with the discussion of Hamlet, I want to make sure that everybody agrees on the facts, the evidence, and the truth.
In other words, there is no room for competing interpretations.
What? Try to imagine if we go through American history, if you impose, let's call it the Hillary standard, how American politics would grind to a halt.
Because I can't think of one time in American history, let alone the most contested moments of American history, when there was this kind of agreement.
So according to her, America's never been a democracy.
Why? Because democracy supposedly requires agreement on A, facts, B, evidence, and C, truth.
So let's start with the argument between Jefferson and Hamilton over whether the Constitution permits a national bank.
They didn't agree. In fact, they didn't agree on whether the Constitution says one thing or the other.
Basically, Jefferson said there's no authority in the Constitution to have a national bank.
And Hamilton said yes, there is.
So they disagreed about a simple fact.
What does the Constitution permit?
They obviously disagreed about evidence because they reasoned a different way.
Hamilton didn't say, by the way, that the Constitution explicitly permits a bank, but he said that there was implied authority, that since the government has powers to do certain things, this was part of those powers.
They didn't agree on evidence.
They didn't agree on facts. They didn't agree on truth.
Now turn to the Lincoln-Douglas debates.
Lincoln accused Douglas of being pro-slavery.
Douglas said he wasn't.
Douglas basically said, I'm for choice.
I'm for letting each community decide for itself.
And Lincoln basically said, that is the most pro-slavery position that you can take as a Northern Democrat.
Now, was Douglas pro-slavery?
Lincoln and Douglas did not agree on the facts.
They did not agree on the evidence.
They did not agree on the truth.
And this is the case throughout American history.
This is the case with Reagan and missile defenses.
The left goes, your missile defenses won't work.
Reagan goes, yes, they will.
They disagreed on the facts.
Second, they disagreed on evidence.
They disagreed on what a missile defense was supposed to do.
The left goes, you can't stop every Soviet missile.
Reagan goes, I don't have to stop every Soviet missile.
We're worried about a first strike that would wipe out all our ICBMs.
If we can stop enough Soviet missiles, that will do the job.
Deterrence is achieved. So they disagree on facts, they disagree on evidence, and they disagree on truth.
And that's true if you come all the way to January 6th.
January 6th was an insurrection.
Define insurrection. An insurrection is an effort to overthrow the government.
The last insurrection we had was essentially the attack on Fort Sumter.
And there's no doubt that there, there was an effort to divide, to decapitate the U.S. government.
How does that compare to what we saw on January 6th?
How does it meet the definition of an insurrection?
Or even a riot?
Or even a coup?
Have the people who use that word, coup, ever seen a coup?
Well, when Pinochet came to power in Chile, that was a coup.
But that was a military operation, people died, and by the way, Pinochet became the dictator.
That's what a coup is.
Where was the coup on January 6th?
Guys milling around the Capitol for, what, 30 minutes and then they're gone?
Taking with them, what, Nancy Pelosi's desk?
I don't even think they took the desk out.
So that wasn't a coup. So we disagree on facts.
We disagree on evidence. We disagree on truth.
And that is what democracy means.
So the remarkable thing is you've got the presidential candidate of the Democratic Party and a party named after democracy.
We're the Democratic Party.
And yet you're calling for what?
Intellectual uniformity?
Imposed conformity?
Forced agreement? On what?
On bogus facts?
On fallacious evidence?
You essentially want the right to proclaim what is true and declare people who say the opposite or who disagree with you as being not only wrong, you want to kick them off the platform.
You in effect want to silence them.
Hillary, in a sense, along with Obama, I mean, this was the turning point for the Democratic Party.
This is when the Democratic Party decided to sort of turn in this gangsterized, corrupt, and tyrannical direction.
And we're living with the fruits of it now.
Biden is just kind of the latest bumbling character on the scene.
But what makes Biden so dangerous is that he is in the ugly, corrupt tradition of Of his two predecessors, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.
If you're thinking of replacing your carpets due to pet stains and odors, you must try Genesis 950.
The reviews are amazing. This is one product that actually works.
With water, it breaks down the bonds of stains and odors so they are gone for good.
Its antibacterial component removes pet odors from carpet and padding.
It can be used in a carpet cleaning machine and it's green so it's safe for your family.
And Pets Genesis 950 is made in America.
One gallon of industrial strength Genesis 950 makes up to seven gallons of cleaner.
But Genesis 950 is also great for bathrooms, floors, upholstery, and grease stains.
Debbie uses it to clean the entire kitchen, and when she got ink on her pants, Genesis 950 took it right off.
Genesis 950 is great customer service.
Order one gallon direct at genesis950.com to receive a free spray bottle, free shipping, and a $10 coupon code using the code Dinesh.
That's genesis950.com.
Coupon only available for one gallon purchase.
Genesis950. It's much cheaper than replacing your carpets or your pants.
And I want to talk about the corruption of language.
And I want to do it by focusing on an article that was tweeted out by LeBron James.
Now you'll remember that LeBron James had created a stir.
By threatening the police officer in the Makia Bryant case.
This is the case in Columbus, Ohio.
The black teenager with a knife in the process of trying to stab another black girl.
And the police officer shot her.
Shot her dead. And LeBron made the policeman into a villain and was almost threatening him as if he's next.
But then he deleted the tweet.
And now, LeBron has sort of come back and said, I kind of fueled the wrong debate there, so I'm going to delete the tweet.
But he circulated an article from Vox by a woman named Fabiola Seneas.
Saying that the cop was still wrong to shoot Makia Bryant.
Now, why? Why was the cop wrong?
According to this Vox article, the cop was wrong because, quote, And I want to focus on that word, child.
Because if you just said to me, child, I think of like a five-year-old.
Maybe a seven-year-old.
I don't think of a teenager.
There's kind of a difference between a child and a teenager.
Just as there's kind of a difference between an infant and a child.
So the use of the word child here is key.
In fact, in one of the tweets that one of the leftists put out, I think this was someone from Hollywood, they literally talked about Makia Bryant as a baby.
She's a baby. Now...
I say this because in a little different context, I'm reading a very interesting dissent by Clarence Thomas.
And this is a case in which they're talking about whether or not teenagers who commit wanton murder can be held liable, can be put, in a sense, on death row.
Should the Supreme Court allow that?
And in that ruling, Clarence Thomas notices that the liberal justices keep using the word child.
Here's a quote from Thomas.
He goes, trial courts, he's quoting the liberal justices on the court.
Trial courts need not make a finding of fact regarding a child's child.
And Thomas zooms into that word child.
And he says the court's language in this line of precedence is notable.
He goes,"...when addressing juvenile murderers, this court has stated that, quote,"...children are different, and courts must consider a child's lesser culpability." And then, this is Thomas at his crushing best,
he goes, And yet, when assessing the court-created right of an individual of the same age to seek an abortion, members of this court take pains to emphasize, quote, So, notice the rhetorical shift.
When you're talking about a 16-year-old who's been accused, not accused, found guilty of murder, it's a child!
We've got to treat this person as a child!
But when the same 16-year-old wants to have an abortion, every young woman has a right to choose.
Suddenly, the child has grown up and become a woman, even though we're talking about a person of the same age.
And then concludes Thomas, It is curious how the court's view of the maturity of minors...
the issue. So Thomas has sort of caught them in the act.
This is a case of trying to make your argument easier by manipulating language, by using the language of adulthood when you want to assign someone rights and responsibility, and then suddenly switching to child when you don't want to hold them accountable. So we see this with LeBron James. We see this with the Vox article. We see this with the liberal justices on the court. This is something
that's good to be alert to because it's part of the rhetorical sleight of hand that is used by the left in a very slippery, adaptable way, just as Thomas points out, to sort of avoid having to face up to the full challenge of making and defending and justifying their indefensible positions.
You know, up until now I had never given a moment's thought about digital security and this is the way the digital platforms like it.
They want unlimited, unquestioned access to your data.
But now I've gotten smart.
Trust me, there's never been a more important time to protect your digital rights.
That's why I and thousands of other listeners, we choose to secure our online data by using ExpressVPN.
Did you believe a VPN isn't for you because you can use the internet just fine without one?
Well, anytime you go online, your internet service provider can see every site you're visiting.
Are you confused about how a VPN works?
ExpressVPN is an app.
It's for computers and smartphones that encrypts your network data and reroutes it through a secure server.
That means you can use the internet more anonymously without having your activity tracked.
You think that VPNs are complex and only for tech experts?
Take it from me, they're not.
With ExpressVPN, you launch the app and tap one button and you're protected.
It's really that simple. I trust ExpressVPN to protect my online data because they're rated number one by CNET and Wired and they stand for my values.
Now is the time for you to take a stance.
Take back your privacy at expressvpn.com slash Dinesh.
You'll get three extra months free on a one-year package.
Again, that's expressvpn.com slash Dinesh.
To get three extra months free, visit expressvpn.com slash Dinesh.
It's time for our mailbox, and let's go to today's question.
Listen. Hey, Dinesh.
My name is Faith, and I have a question for you about the Second Amendment.
I know the founders included the Second Amendment so that we can have a defense against a tyrannical government.
But since the military has so much advanced weapons technology that civilians can't get our hands on, I think that all of our guns would be basically useless if the government metaphorically starts rounding us up to go to the gulags.
In light of our military's technological advantage, do you think that the Second Amendment has been rendered essentially powerless?
This is a very interesting question, because it's often said that the Second Amendment serves, well, it serves two purposes.
The one is to be able to enable you to defend your life and your property and your family if you are threatened.
And I think this is probably the most ordinary use of the Second Amendment because, you know, you can try calling the cops, but the cops are not always on the scene and it takes them a while to get there.
And so self-defense is probably the most common use of the Second Amendment.
But of course there is a second and perhaps less obvious use of it, and that is that governments will think twice about being tyrannical over their own citizens if the citizens are armed.
Debbie tells me about Venezuela and the way in which in Venezuela the government was very shrewd before they established increasing forms of control.
And we're not talking here about We're talking here about a government that is able to lean on, bully, and dominate the lives of its citizens while the citizens are powerless, they're prostrate, they're helpless from the government.
So before the government did that, they took away the guns.
They disarmed the citizenry.
Why? Because they knew that their job would be easier.
Not to say that the Venezuelan citizens, if they had guns, would be able to take on the Venezuelan military and defeat them in an armed conflict.
No. But the Venezuelan government would think twice about sending someone to your door and saying, listen, move out of your shop.
This shop no longer belongs to you.
Move out of your house. We've got somebody else who wants to live in your house.
They would think twice about all that if the citizens were armed.
So, you're raising a prospect that I think is kind of distant, which is essentially a U.S. military at war with its own citizens.
I think that prospect is actually quite unlikely.
First of all, think of what it means for a country to go to war like that with its own citizens in military combat.
I agree that the citizens would not prevail in that kind of a conflict.
But quite frankly, I'm not even sure that the military would in conscience be able to unleash such a conflict.
Imagine giving the military orders, go out there and essentially do battle with American citizens.
I think you'd have a mutiny in the military ranks itself.
So the bottom line of it is I don't think we have to worry about open warfare between the military and the citizens.
We can, in a more modest sense, defend the Second Amendment by realizing, A, it's going to help me and my family protect ourselves, and B, it's going to make the government think twice as it moves in a more tyrannical direction, to think that they can just kind of come confiscate my stuff, take away my liberties, take away my freedoms, you know, take away my family.
▲
Export Selection