All Episodes
Previous Next
May 7, 2021 - Dinesh D'Souza
01:04:08
AMERICAN OLIGARCHY Dinesh D’Souza Podcast Ep 85
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
America now has an aristocracy, and you and I are not part of it.
Kamala Harris says the border crisis is due to climate change.
And Senator Josh Hawley joins me to talk about what to do about digital censorship.
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.
America is now ruled by an oligarchy, and you and I are not part of it.
We tend to miss this because we get into, very often as conservatives, a silly parlor game.
Is America a democracy?
Is America a republic?
No, Dinesh, we're not a democracy.
We're a republic. And all of this kind of misses the simple fact that we're really, right now, neither one.
Now, we're misled by this because, of course, the left uses the rhetoric of democracy all the time.
Oh, we have to oppose these voter integrity laws because they're a threat to democracy.
The January 6th events were an attack on democracy.
So the pretense here is that the Democratic Party represents...
The people, democracy.
And of course, that puts us as conservatives into, well, we actually have this constitutional system with checks and balances.
So we get into this, I would say, false debate.
And I say false debate because the simple truth is that we now have a sort of ruling class and they live by a different code, by their own set of rules.
Now, I just... I saw a post in The Federalist.
Governor Gretchen Whitmer borrows a private jet for a secret Florida trip during lockdown.
Now, this caught my eye, not because it is so rare and unusual.
Oh my gosh, here's a public figure abusing her authority.
But this is normal for these Democrats.
They do this all the time. Gavin Newsom meets at a French restaurant.
And that's only COVID. Then you turn to other areas and you notice...
It's something that we've talked about on the podcast, double standards.
And so, for example, if a Republican is caught in any kind of sexual peccadilloes, out he goes!
A single accusation was attempted to bring down Kavanaugh, and the only reason it didn't, it almost did, was because the accusation had no corroboration and was so old.
Now, contrast that, for example, with the multiple accusations against Andrew Cuomo, one after the other.
So, are all these women lying?
Obviously not. So, even though I don't take the view that you automatically believe an accusation, I do believe that if you have people in your own camp, many of them, all independently saying that you did the same kinds of things, well, hey, you know, you probably did them.
And so, this is being stalled by an attorney general investigation and clearly attempted to protect Cuomo, and Cuomo, of course, was able to say, I'm not going to resign.
Somebody else who said, I'm not going to resign?
Ralph Northam. I'm not going to resign.
Of course, if any Republican had been caught doing this work, Ku Klux Klan outfit, blackface, that would be it.
The next day, out.
So, what we notice here in case after case...
That there are people in America who seem to be sort of above the rules.
And they also have a sense of entitlement of being above the rules.
And this sense of entitlement is justified because when they're interviewed by reporters, it's sort of like, Oh, I see.
You made an error.
Perhaps you would be a little more diplomatic in correcting that the next time.
There's no outrage. There's no expose.
There's no relentless media drumbeat.
Why? Because this is an acknowledged member, it seems, of an American aristocracy.
The Clintons.
These people have been, you know, I like to say they've been one step ahead of the posse for 40 years.
One racket after another.
Financial rackets.
You know, sometimes people are ending up dead.
But interestingly, they haven't been one step ahead of the posse.
You know why? There is no posse.
No one's chasing them.
No one's going after them.
Bill Clinton is a known sex predator.
No problem. He flew on Epstein's jet.
He should be indicted.
Nah, no one's even attempting to indict him.
Hillary Clinton, the Clinton Foundation, ripping money from the Haitians.
No problem. Why?
Because these people are above the law.
They operate by their own set of rules.
And this is sort of the classic definition of aristocracy, of oligarchy.
It's a small group of people, an elite, that operates by its own rules and is sort of immune to the standards that apply to ordinary people.
Aristotle, in the politics, described three different forms of government.
There is the government of one man, that's called a monarchy.
There's the government of a few, that is an aristocracy.
And then there's the government of the many, that's democracy.
Now, the government of the few aristocracy, the word itself means the rule of the best, or in the ancient world, the rule of virtue.
Of course, the aristocracy I'm talking about is the opposite.
They're To say that the rule of virtue is to provoke immediate laughter and derision because virtue is the furthest thing from their mind.
Now, all of this is very important for us to know, the emergence of this aristocratic class.
Why? Because very often we get into sort of a complicated argument, which is a distraction about which institution is really to blame.
We'll say things like, well...
You know, is the problem the media or is it the Democratic Party?
Is the Democratic Party being driven by the media or is the media the propaganda wing of the Democratic Party?
Or if we turn to academia, we say things like, well, is it true that the culture of academia has somehow metastasized and contaminated Hollywood and the media?
Or is it the other way around?
Are the ideas of Hollywood and the media and the larger culture then making their way into academia?
What about the deep state?
Is the deep state acting at the behest of the Democratic Party?
Is the deep state courting the media?
Is the media operating in response to the deep state?
And the problem with all this kind of discussion, valid in and of itself, is it kind of misses the point.
And what is the point? The point is that these are all the same people.
They're all the same people who grew up in the same zip codes, who got the same kind of education, who have the same kind of, you may say, woke ideology.
And they are strategically placed in these institutions.
They have taken over these institutions.
And by the way, they haven't taken them over through some kind of democratic referendum.
They have taken them over through infiltration.
They have taken them over at the top.
So this has been a political and cultural revolution at the top.
So, when you look at things like someone in the media, some left-winger in the media, you suddenly look at, who is she married to?
Oh, that guy works for the FBI. Or you look at another guy in the Democratic Party.
Who is he married to?
Who is his partner? Oh, turns out somebody in Hollywood.
So this is a, once you begin to look behind it, you begin to see this is a deeply incestuous world of people who go to the same cocktail parties.
They all know each other.
They're connected either by marriage or by blood or by friendship or they're roommates and The bottom line of it is we are dealing here with a group of people who have, in a sense, taken over America.
Now, the Washington Post, in a weird way, accidentally blew the whistle on this.
This is an article shortly after Biden was elected, and I'm going to read a line from it.
The aristocracy of this city is ready to move on.
There's that key word. I think they sort of let it slip out.
I'm not sure they meant to say it.
This is the aristocratic mindset.
Whoa! Somehow the American people sort of jumped in here and they put this usurper, Trump.
Now remember, Trump used to be part of this exact aristocracy.
But the moment he declared himself to be a Republican, he was expelled from it.
Suddenly he became a Yahoo.
Suddenly he became a man of the pitchfork people.
And yet the pitchfork people kind of did a trick on the aristocracy in 2016.
The aristocracy was determined...
Never to let this happen again.
And they made sure it didn't happen again in 2020.
Now, what's the solution to all this?
Well, the solution to all this as a first step is we, the American people, have to Disrespect this aristocracy.
We don't know a way to overthrow them immediately.
We just need to start by saying, we do not respect our so-called betters.
Why? Because they're not our betters.
They're not actually better educated than we are.
They don't know more.
They don't live more productive lives.
In fact, some of them don't even earn very much money.
I saw an interesting post on social media the other day about some guy...
There was a bunch of people complaining that a top editor of the New York Times earned $100,000 a year.
Now, I don't mean to minimize $100,000.
It is a lot of money, but it isn't that much money.
There are lots of people who are farmers.
There are cops, by the way, who earn over $100,000.
So this idea that these people are like, no, it's not necessarily the aristocracy of wealth.
But it is the aristocracy of connections.
It is the aristocracy of power.
And most of all, it's the aristocracy of living above the rules, of getting, you may say, a pass.
Everything you do is sort of allowed.
And we have to fight to get our democracy back, get our republic back from these people who are neither democrats nor republicans.
Who are they? They're oligarchs, and we need to expose them and think of them as such.
I'm really happy to have Senator Josh Hawley on the podcast.
Senator Hawley has been a rising star in the Republican Party.
He's had a decorated career at Stanford, Yale Law School, clerking for the Chief Justice, state attorney, and now Senator from Missouri.
His new book, The Tyranny of Big Tech, you might remember one of the mainstream publishing houses tried to suppress the book.
It's out from Regnery.
Senator Hawley, thanks for coming on the program.
I really appreciate it.
Let's talk about big tech.
Is your argument that this is the new public square, this is the place where people talk and argue so that the democratic process requires a free, open space?
What is the nature of the problem that you're tackling?
I think the nature of the problem is monopoly.
Here we have these companies, the tech companies, and I'm thinking of the dominant tech platforms.
So Apple and Amazon and Facebook and Twitter and Google, of course, these dominant platforms have become monopolies that control the tech space, they control much of our economy, and they control speech.
To your point, Dinesh, they control huge amounts of speech, news information, and even journalism.
And my view is, like we've done before in American history, we've got to break up these monopolies.
They've gotten to the point they are, the size they are, with the help of the federal government.
I mean, this isn't natural, quote unquote.
This isn't the market just working on its own.
They've gotten special deals from government that have helped them become huge, big, and monopolistic.
Now they're suppressing competition, even as they're suppressing speech, and we need to break them up.
Now, we've had, you could say, three communications revolutions in the country's history.
There was the first one in the 19th century with the telegraph, for example, and the railroads.
Then you had the early 20th century with the telephone and the car and the airplane.
And if we're now living through the third communications revolution, are we seeing something similar to what, say, Teddy Roosevelt encountered a century ago when he saw these massive cartels?
And even though he was a Republican, he said, hey, listen...
Fighting these cartels is actually supporting capitalism, because capitalism doesn't just mean laissez-faire, leave them alone.
Capitalism means ensuring competition, ensuring fair play, ensuring that people have a right to compete in the marketplace.
Yeah, that's exactly right. You know, Theodore Roosevelt understood that being pro-capitalism, being pro-worker, being pro-free market meant that you were anti-monopoly.
Because monopoly is the enemy of competition.
Monopoly is also the enemy of liberty.
And that's something that Republicans a century ago understood too.
You know, Republicans really invented trust-busting as a policy.
I mean, we were the party of trust-busters a century ago.
And not because we were against the free market and against capitalism, but because we were for it.
And I think we've got to take the same position today.
I mean, these companies are a threat to the free market.
They are trying to squelch competition.
They're trying to prevent new businesses from getting into the market, new market entrants.
They're throttling down innovation.
I think they're actually contributing to an innovation slowdown because of their monopoly status.
And of course, there's their control over speech.
So the bottom line is...
Not just competition in the free market, but liberty and monopoly don't go together.
And Theodore Roosevelt and the Republicans a century ago understood that.
Our framers understood that.
And that's something that we need to recapture today.
So clearly you don't accept this.
There is a kind of libertarian camp that holds, hey, these are private companies, leave them alone.
You Republicans are supposed to be for privatization and letting private companies function.
But what you're saying, I think, and you make this point in the book, And I find this really very interesting.
You've got Democrats in Congress cheering on and demanding that these digital censors censor more.
You've got reporters who literally are reporting people to Google, reporting people to Twitter, censor this guy, shut down this guy's account.
So it appears like there's an elite coordinated assault.
And in some ways, to me, the distinction between government and private is less important because all these dudes are working in concert.
No, they really are working in concert.
And you're right about what the Democrats want in Congress.
If you listen to them, what they say is the tech companies ought to be censoring more.
They've really fallen in love, the Democrats have, with the tech companies' monopoly power.
And they want to use that power to censor conservative speech, to shut down opposition, to do what the government couldn't do in our country, thanks to the First Amendment.
But they want to get around that by using these tech companies.
I would just say that, once again, free markets only function if there's competition.
And that's why believers in the free market have always said there's a place to make sure that we don't have monopolies that cut off competition, that threaten individual liberty, that threaten also the liberty of self-government, which is ultimately what we're trying to defend here.
We're trying to defend our democratic republic.
And for that to be true, for our democratic republic to be healthy and to survive, the American people have to be in control of their lives, their government, and their information, not these monopoly companies.
And that's why I think we need to act.
I mean, just yesterday Hillary Clinton released a statement, and I don't know if you saw this, but in effect she said, if we can't agree on A, facts, B, evidence, and C, truth, then we can't really have democracy.
And I was literally chuckling as I read this, because I thought to myself, throughout American history, I mean, Jefferson and Hamilton didn't agree, Lincoln and Douglas didn't agree, you know, Reagan and Mondale didn't agree, so we've had...
Debates, and very often the debates are about facts.
Is this a fact and what is its significance?
So if you demand in advance that there be some agreement on not only facts, but evidence and truth, and then you call upon these digital platforms to, quote, enforce it, you're basically subverting the argument that is at the heart of the democratic process itself, aren't you? That's right.
And what democracy can't exist without is free speech.
What it can't exist without is debate, free and open debate.
You know, our framers were so focused on deliberation.
They wanted the people to be in control of the government.
They wanted the people to make decisions.
And how would they do that? Well, we would deliberate together, and then we would ultimately come to a decision.
And our whole constitutional structure is to try to promote this control by the people.
And to try to promote deliberation by the people to reach these decisions.
You can't do any of that if you can't have free and open debate.
And I think one of the reasons today's woke left is so scary and their effort to use the monopoly power of these corporations is so scary is because they want to shut down debate.
They want to shut down free speech.
They don't believe in that anymore.
There really is an authoritarian element to the modern left and to the woke left that you're seeing.
And you see it in these companies.
And this is, again, why conservatives are going to take a stand on the Constitution, the First Amendment, and say this is what we believe in.
When we come back, I want to probe with Senator Hawley the simple question that when the ruling party is cheering censorship, what can we do to actually fight back against the digital censors?
We'll be right back. I just got word from Mike Lindell that Vimeo has put his MyPillow account back on and Mike is also working on his new free speech platform called Frank, which is, I believe, going to be pretty awesome. I want to talk about Mike's products.
Debbie and I, we love his pillows, his sort of signature product.
We also love his other stuff.
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 the sheets.
He's come out with the world's most comfortable bed sheets.
He found the best cotton in the world in a place where the Sahara Desert, the Nile River, and the Mediterranean Sea all come together to create the ideal conditions for growing cotton.
His new Visa Dream bed sheets are made with this long staple cotton.
They will be the most comfortable sheets you own.
The first night you sleep on them, you'll never want to sleep on anything else.
The Geezer Dream Sheets come in a variety of colors, like all of Mike's products.
60-day money-back guarantee.
10-year warranty. Right now, buy one, get one free.
Call 800-876-0227 and use promo code Dinesh.
Discounts on all the products.
Buy one, get one free on the sheets.
Call 800-876-0227 or go to MyPillow.com.
Don't forget to use promo code D-I-N-E-S-H Dinesh.
Back with Senator Josh Hawley, the author of an important book, The Tyranny of Big Tech, and it's so important that the left has been trying to block it.
They tried to prevent it from getting published in the first place.
It's like the old movies banned in Boston, which means you've got to see the movie.
Now, we're talking, Senator Hawley, about the problem of big tech and of censorship.
I think there's no doubt about what the problem is, but Normally, you'd say, all right, well, why don't we pass some laws?
Why don't we repeal the Section 230 protection?
The problem, as I see it, is that none of that is actually going to happen as long as you've got a Democratic House, a Democratic Senate, a Democratic Congress, and these are the cheerleaders for censorship.
We can't reasonably expect any legislation to go forward in this environment, right?
Right. I think it's going to be tough, and we've got to look to find progress where we can find it on Capitol Hill.
And I think wherever, I just say for my part, I'm willing to work with anybody to move forward an agenda that will actually put power back in the hands of the American people and break up the power of these big tech monopolies.
I think there's some opportunity to do that, but I think you're right, Dinesh, that we're really going to have to push Right now is we've got to push in the states.
I can say this as a former state attorney general.
With those antitrust suits, those trust-busting suits that the states are filing, those are vitally important.
Those need to go forward.
I'm cheering on states like Texas and Florida and others that are talking about penalizing and even finding the big tech companies if they engage in censorship and engage in viewpoint discrimination.
I mean, these are important efforts.
We've got to look for every front we can, in the courts, in the states, and on Capitol Hill, to challenge these companies' monopoly and try to put the American people back in charge.
I was looking at the Florida law, which basically says that if you censor someone who is a candidate or a statewide official or somebody running for office, you could be subject to some fines.
But I say, why not go further?
Why not have a state, whether it's Texas or Missouri, that basically says, look, if you censor a citizen of the state and you're not able to provide, you meaning here Twitter or Facebook, a proper explanation for why you did this, what was the basis of the decision, then you face a $1 million fine.
I mean, wouldn't that stop this in its tracks?
Wouldn't that send a chilling message to these people?
And they need to be chilled because it appears that they live in some kind of elite bubble where they don't really care.
I mean, they show up for hearings.
It looks like they treat it as sort of a joke.
The hearing is kind of a nuisance that they have to deal with.
They go right back to doing what they were doing before.
Or they set up these bogus oversight boards in which, you know, it's kind of like a company president turns to his own board of directors.
Do you guys agree with me? Yes, you do.
Okay, wonderful. I'm going to do this.
So you've got this sort of insider operation in which...
If you or I are banned, we don't even know who banned us.
We don't know why. We don't know on what basis the decision was taken.
I mean, no other company that I can think of in America where Delta can't cancel your flight without giving you some explanation.
If you bought your ticket, you can call them up and scream at them and they'll make it right.
Not with these guys. No, that's exactly right.
And that's because with every other business in America, every other media platform, you have the right to go to court, especially if you have a term of service with them, a contract with them.
If they violate that, you could say, wait a minute, wait a minute.
You can't just cancel my ticket if you're an airline.
You can't just defame me on the air.
I'm going to take you to court.
These companies, these tech companies, get that special deal from the federal government.
This is one of the ways they've gotten to be so powerful, that special immunity.
That's the famous or infamous Section 230.
So to your question about the states, I cheer on the states in trying to find ways to give citizens their day in court to give them some kind of power.
I personally think that one of the reforms we need to make, vital reform, is to make these companies' terms of service enforceable.
Allow a customer who has been deplatformed to take this company to court.
I mean, do you want to change their behavior real quick?
Make them subject to lawsuits.
That'll change their behavior.
Make their terms of service actually enforceable.
Make them prove and demonstrate that what they did wasn't political viewpoint discrimination.
That'll change their behavior really fast.
Let me ask you as a last question, a kind of a broader question, which is, I noticed that when companies, for example, offend the sensibilities of the left, the left goes berserk.
And by that I mean they show up at the company, they threaten them, we're going to call you a racist.
There's all kinds of activism on the left in resistance to this stuff.
I don't see anything comparable on the right.
It seems that somehow there's a temperamental difference between us and them.
And so if our free speech rights are violated, we write a stinging op-ed in National Review, but we don't get out there.
We don't have the same energy.
We can't frighten these companies into submission evidently in the way that the left can.
Do you think that we need a kind of newly mobilized Republican activism that takes to the streets kind of the same way the left does?
Well, I certainly think that we need folks to stand up and to demand their rights and their freedoms and to say that we're just not going to roll over for big tech.
I mean, you look at, you mentioned the oversight board, the fake Facebook court, as I call it, that basically is just Facebook saying, we'll do whatever we want to do, whenever we want to do it.
We want to deplatform Donald Trump.
We'll do it. We don't have to give a reason because we're Facebook and you just have to take it.
And I think we've got to get to a point where the American people say, we're not going to take it.
We're not just going to say that you can control our lives, and you can control our personal information, and you can control our politics, and we just accept it.
So I think that, by the way, I think you are seeing this from voters.
I think this is one of the reasons that Republican senators in my short two years on Capitol Hill, Republican senators have really begun to change their position on these issues, and it's because of their voters.
Their voters are saying to them, you have to do something about these monopolies, and the voters are right.
Thank you, Senator Hawley, for coming on the show.
Folks, you've got to get his book, The Tyranny of Big Tech, published by Regnery.
It's an awesome book, and this has been, for me, a very interesting conversation.
Thanks so much. Thanks for having me.
The Biden administration is pushing for student debt forgiveness, more stimulus checks, expanded unemployment benefits, a $2 trillion infrastructure plan.
Well, the question comes to mind, who's going to pay?
Clearly, the Biden administration thinks they're playing with monopoly money.
Now, for years, actually decades, I never invested in gold, just the stock market.
But now I'm seriously worried about a regime we have in Washington.
No sense of fiscal responsibility.
Listen, if all your investments are tied to greenbacks, you're sitting on a ticking time bomb.
Invest a portion of your savings into gold and silver.
Birch Gold Group is who I purchased from and who you can trust to convert an IRA or eligible 401k into an IRA backed by gold and silver.
That's right. And invest in gold before it's too late.
Kamala Harris thinks that the border crisis is due to climate change.
Now, the Biden administration has named Kamala Harris to be sort of its border czar.
But Kamala Harris hasn't really been down to the border.
Nevertheless, this hasn't stopped her from making proclamations about the border.
Here's the latest one.
Listen. So, we are focused on addressing both the acute factors and the root causes of migration.
And I believe this is an important distinction.
We must focus on both.
First, the acute factors.
The catastrophes that are causing people to leave right now.
The hurricanes, the pandemic, the drought, and extreme food insecurity.
And then there are the long-standing issues, the root causes.
And I'm thinking of corruption, violence and poverty, the lack of economic opportunity, the lack of climate adaptation and climate resilience.
Did you watch her kind of, if you watched her carefully...
Did it look to you like she's doing an Obama imitation, that kind of modulated voice?
This is almost like kind of transgender Obama, you know?
Right? I mean, this is sort of like, there was an eerie echo of Obama in there.
I think if you watch it carefully, you'll see what I mean.
But I think what really gets me is sort of...
Well, first of all, she has these two, this distinction, you know, between hurricanes, in other words, weather events on the one side, and the other, the systemic climate change.
And all I can think of as I listen to this claptrap is, I can just, I mean, it puts my mind into a kind of scene of Kamala Harris, if she ever goes down to the border or even to the other side, claptrap.
Talking to sort of a Mexican farmer or like a Salvadoran peasant.
And I'm trying to envision what that conversation might, you know, might sound like, you know, something like, have you ever heard about climate change?
Ha ha ha! And the guy's like, no, senora, I've never heard about climate change.
I've got bigger problems to worry about than climate change.
Oh, you must be suffering from some food insecurity.
And the guy's like, food insecurity?
I don't have food.
My problem isn't insecurity.
I'm actually looking for a burrito.
I actually want something to eat.
I'm not just insecure about food.
I need food. Ha ha!
I totally get it.
I totally get it. Well, do you know, Roberto, that the temperature of the earth is one and a half degrees more than it was a hundred years ago?
My man is like, no, senora.
I had no idea about that.
In fact, I didn't even know that we could measure the temperature of the earth a hundred years ago.
He's like, how did they do that?
And she's like, what do I know?
Ha ha ha! So the bottom line of it here is that you have this crazy conversation going on.
And the guy goes, Roberto, do you know that it's just a lot hotter around here?
Do you remember that hurricane that came through Salvador?
Isn't that the worst hurricane you've ever experienced?
Ha ha! And Roberta's like, actually, no, there was a far worse hurricane when I was a kid.
We had many more hurricanes in the past.
And she's like, really?
Well, the scientists don't agree with you, Roberta.
Your memory must be failing you.
Your grandfather was probably lying to you.
Ha ha! So this is what we're dealing with.
We're dealing with pure nonsense, or as someone once said, nonsense on stilts.
And this is supposed to be the policy of the Biden administration.
So at a very serious level, we're dealing with utter craziness.
Yes, conditions are bad on the other side, but it's nothing to do with climate change.
These countries have been poor for millennia.
They've been poor going all the way back.
Imagine going to some slum in India and saying something like, these slums exist because of climate change.
And they're like, no, these slums exist because they've existed since the 3rd century AD.
This is the way things have been in India for a long time.
Yes, the British were here, but they were that way under the British as well.
They haven't changed for a long time.
What's really new isn't poverty.
What's really new is the formula for people coming out of poverty.
And that's really what these poor countries are looking for.
Not nonsense about the rise in global temperatures, but rather a recipe to enable poor people who are eating one taco a day to find a way to have two tacos a day.
You know, I'm sort of totally a creature of habit, so when I met Dr.
Douglas Howard, who founded the company Balance of Nature, he's like, Dinesh, you're probably not eating enough fruits and veggies.
You've got to take my capsules.
And I'm like, well, I have a great solution.
Debbie will take them. Debbie started taking them, loves them.
But even though she kept telling me how good she feels, how much it's doing for her, I was still kind of reluctant.
Well, finally, Dr.
Howard talked to Debbie, and he's like, Debbie, make him do it.
And so she started me on these capsules.
I basically take them.
I love them. You know what?
We really don't eat enough fruits and veggies.
Partly because we don't like them and there's an easier way than to eat the stuff you don't like.
That's the balance of nature kind of magic.
Imagine if you were eating 10 servings of fruits and veggies every single day.
So basically, Debbie and I, we take the six daily capsules and we're set.
We get a All the vital nutrients sourced from 31 fruits and veggies every single day.
Debbie also swears by the fiber and spice powder.
She says she's never been more regular.
Join us and experience the Balance of Nature difference for yourself.
For a limited time, all new preferred customers get an additional 35% discount and free shipping on your first Balance of Nature order.
Use discount code America.
Call 800-246-8751 or go to balanceofnature.com and use discount code America.
Jonathan Turley, the political scientist, this is the guy, by the way, who testified in favor of Trump during the impeachment trial.
He's a liberal, but he is an honest one, one of the few honest ones left.
And he always has insightful commentary.
I'm looking at an article that he wrote in The Hill, and he's talking about a bunch of lawsuits that are being filed in Seattle.
Because of crimes that occurred.
You remember the autonomous zone that was called CHOP, which is the Capitol Hill Occupied Protest?
Riders took over a police station.
They were allowed to occupy a whole section of the city.
And they established kind of their own autonomous zone ruled by revolutionaries.
You had to sort of get permission to come in and so on.
Well... Turns out that while they were doing this, really bad stuff was going on inside that occupied zone.
Let me tell you about a couple of those things.
A young man, Horace Lorenzo Anderson, was gunned down and chopped by another fellow named Marcel Long after they had an argument.
Now, his mother, Donita Sinclair, is suing Seattle, saying, Seattle, you're responsible.
Number one, you weren't policing that zone.
Number two, even when he was shot, his life could have been saved, but because the city of Seattle had granted autonomy to chop, this is, by the way, the mayor, Jenny Durkin, emergency treatment was delayed.
The emergency van actually tried to get in, but it was treated as like some foreign entity trying to come into this autonomous zone.
Where's your passport? Where are your papers?
And so the bottom line of it is they finally put this kid into a private vehicle.
But he was bleeding, and they couldn't get him out, and the bottom line of it is medical attention arrived too late.
Another case. A little over a week later, there was another shooting.
A 16-year-old boy was killed.
A 14-year-old was seriously wounded.
So the crimes in CHOP include homicide, shootings, robberies, sexual assaults, all while the city of Seattle stayed out of it, did absolutely nothing.
No surprise. There's now a flurry of lawsuits holding the city accountable.
And here is where Jonathan Turley's op-ed really takes off because he says, what is the city's defense going to be?
The city's defense is going to be immunity.
Government immunity. These are decisions that we were making as government officials, and government officials should have immunity.
Even if they make the wrong decision, let's just say they say, well, you know, we didn't really want to interfere with CHOP because we thought that may escalate an already troublesome situation.
We thought it more prudent to stay out, so we made a decision.
It could have been the wrong decision.
Maybe bad things happened, but we are immune.
You can't sue us.
Now, says Turley, these exact same Democratic officials who are likely to mount this immunity defense have been trying to get rid of the immunity defense in the case of police brutality.
And so, for example, when it comes to these police cases, you have all these left-wingers in Seattle, yes?
Council members, for example, say, fire these white police officers.
And then you have the...
Congresswoman Pramila Jaipal, Democrat of Washington, the city council president Lorena Gonzalez, council members Teresa Mosqueda, Tammy Morales, Kishama Sawant, a fellow Indian.
I'm embarrassed to say.
Anyway, these people all say, we don't need immunity for police officers.
Police officers should be held accountable for Personally, for what they do, and this concept of immunity should be abolished.
Now, these people in Seattle aren't alone.
President Biden is trying to push through something called the George Floyd Justice and Policing Act.
And part of what it does is it reduces.
It doesn't completely eliminate, but it eliminates, for the most part, immunity for police officers.
Now, Turley's point is, if you don't have immunity for police officers, then on what basis can government officials claim immunity for themselves? Now, admittedly, the government officials in Seattle can say, well, listen, you know, we didn't kill those kids. We didn't do those robberies. So the police in the situation is acting directly. They're doing something. All we did is maybe negligence. We did not act.
So you can't hold us responsible just for not acting. But Turley says, wait a minute, The police officer may have acted, but the police officer had like, what, one and a half seconds to make that decision?
So the police officer is acting under extreme duress with a very limited time to make a very difficult decision.
But you, the city of Seattle, you had days and weeks and months to make your decisions.
You basically made a conscious decision.
That you're going to let whatever mayhem happens in CHOP, whoever gets robbed, whoever gets raped, whoever gets killed, you're not going to do anything about it.
And you're the government of Seattle.
You are actually entrusted and empowered, and citizens depend on you to govern, to enforce the law.
You choose not to do it.
So why should you have immunity?
So that's Turley's point.
The immunity elimination for police could very well come back to bite the city of Seattle, which is in some ways far more culpable.
Why?
Because they have more time, more discretion.
In this sense, they do bear direct responsibility for the crimes that occur in their jurisdiction.
I've warned you before about home title theft, where cyber thieves remove you from your home's title I said you better get home title locked 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's title with Home Title Lock.
Go to HomeTitleLock.com and register your address to see if you're already a victim.
Then sign up for 30 free days of protection during this high-risk breach.
Again, go to HomeTitleLock.com and use promo code RADIO. That's HometitleLock.com, promo code RADIO. The Huffington Post is blasting me for my defense of January 6th protesters.
And this is a defense that I've been making, well, not daily, but periodically on the podcast.
I also do it on social media.
The latest ruckus is just over a social media post that I did in which...
In which I, there was a picture I saw on social media.
This is sort of, you've probably seen it.
It's sort of a classic picture of this guy.
I'm going to hold it up right here.
It's the guy with the podium.
You've seen it, so I won't hold it up too long.
But he's grinning, he's waving, and he's kind of holding the podium cradle to the side.
And And I go, does this look like an insurrection or riot, a coup attempt?
And then I say, if it doesn't walk like a duck or talk like a duck, then it probably isn't a duck.
In other words, quite clearly, this dude is no insurrectionary person.
Insurrectionary leader. He's no Bin Laden.
He's no Robert E. Lee.
He's not the people who fired on Fort Sumter.
He's a goofball who is kind of smiling for the camera.
Now, interestingly, the Huffington Post jumps right on this and they go, Right-wing pundits attempt to whitewash the Capitol insurrection backfires.
So they're writing the article based on a single tweet.
And I'm gonna read now.
Adam Christian Johnson was arrested in January and charged with entering a restricted building or grounds without lawful authority.
Yeah, he was trespassing.
He's charged with disorderly conduct, i.e.
cradling the podium.
Now... The columnist Molly Jong Fast.
This is, by the way, the daughter of the novelist, the erotic novelist, Erica Jong.
And Molly's sort of trying to make a name for herself by, you know, trying to achieve the notoriety of mom.
But she puts this sort of tut-tut type of quote tweet.
He's stealing the speaker's podium from Congress.
Really? Did he take the podium and leave with it?
No. He was just holding it up.
He's walking around with it.
He obviously thinks it's funny.
So you want to treat him like some sort of a bank robber.
But the truth of it is, moving a podium from point A to point B inside the Capitol, to me, does not constitute stealing.
And then there's a whole bunch of other posts.
Looks like Dinesh D'Souza's busy defending January 6th insurrectionists, which is a reminder that today's Republican Party celebrates domestic terrorism above all else.
I love the above all else.
So not only do we celebrate domestic terrorism, that's like our top thing.
Another guy, Mike Rothschild, kind of looks like a dweeb.
Anyway, this guy's literally looting the U.S. Capitol.
Looting? Well, haven't you seen people who go into grocery stores and they take out furniture and they go running out with all kinds of stuff?
That's called looting. Looting is taking stuff and putting it in your car.
Nobody looted the U.S. Capitol.
Um... An illegal breach meant to overturn an election.
What does that really mean?
How were these people trying to overturn an election?
They were trying to get an accurate and honest count.
And then, this kills me, this is the crusher.
If he were black, Dinesh would be screaming for him to be guillotined on pay-per-view.
This is liberal rhetoric in our day.
If this guy holding the podium sideways were black, somehow I would be for the death penalty.
And not only for the death penalty, but on pay-per-view.
Now, I don't even think that really deserves to be answered.
Really, what I've been getting at is the fact that all kinds of people who are not even in the Capitol are being harassed, are being chased down, are being interrogated.
I'll give a single example.
So here's Paul Heiper and his wife in Alaska.
And they're woken early in the morning to an FBI raid.
It's Armed FBI agents, guns drawn.
They pull these people out of their house.
They separate them. They give them all kinds of warnings claiming that they're facing all these charges.
And guess what? They weren't even at the Capitol.
They weren't in the Capitol.
It turns out they grabbed this couple and they accused them of stealing Nancy Pelosi's laptop.
And these guys go, we don't have Nancy Pelosi's laptop.
We don't know anything about it.
So the FBI then ransacks their home, confiscates their computers, takes their cell phones, and then they show the wife, Marilyn Hyper, a picture, and they go, that's you at the Capitol.
And Marilyn Hyper goes, I wasn't at the Capitol.
Somebody photoshopped that.
That's not me! And the FBI realizes that it's not them.
They have the wrong people.
But you'd think they'd give it up.
But no. Their idea here is that, in a way, even this false raid has a purpose.
And what is the purpose? To terrify Trump supporters.
And that's the point. This is what the columnist Julie Kelly has been saying in American Greatness.
She's been saying that this is a sort of East German Stasi, a kind of police operation with a conscious purpose We're good to go.
Reichstag fire style in order to make a crackdown on your political opposition.
This is the deep corruption that's going on with Merrick Garland and with the Biden FBI. And that is what I'm trying to communicate.
Have you ever tasted Omaha Steaks?
They're absolutely delicious.
And Omaha Steaks saved us during the COVID lockdown.
That'd be like so cooking kind of simple and easy.
This food is absolutely delicious.
And I say this as a foodie who is not easily convinced.
I have so many favorites.
They're beef stroganoff, the fully cooked pot roast, chicken and dumplings, jambalaya.
It's making me hungry right now.
Now, Mother's Day is this weekend.
Send mom exactly what she craves this year, the mouth-watering Let's Go Grill package from Omaha Steaks.
Visit omahasteaks.com and enter keyword Dinesh in the search bar to order today.
This package includes signature butcher-cut filet mignons, boneless pork chops, kielbasa sausages, and so much more.
Plus, your mom will get tasty bonus...
12 ultra-juicy Omaha Steak Burgers free.
That's almost four pounds of free burgers.
And to top it off, you'll get $20 off on your first order.
Treat mom to the best steak of her life guaranteed.
Visit omahasteaks.com.
Use the code Dinesh in the search bar and give your mom something she'll love.
Remember, you also get the 12 free Omaha Steak Burgers and $20 off at checkout on your first order.
This is the Let's Go Grill package.
It's selling out fast. Don't wait and miss out.
OmahaSteaks.com, keyword Dinesh.
Was the three-fifths clause in the Constitution A statement of racism and of white supremacy.
This is a part of the, I would call it, lore, propaganda of critical race theory.
It is something that is frequently taught in schools and universities, and we often hear it in the media.
The idea that, well, Dinesh, the Constitution itself is racist.
Really, why is it racist?
Well, it says that blacks are only three-fifths of a human being.
And so the meaning attributed to the three-fifths clause is that it is somehow a statement about the intrinsic worth of blacks, which is held to be three-fifths, 60% of the intrinsic worth of whites.
So blacks are supposedly being declared to be, quote, partly human.
Now, recently this controversy surfaced on CNN. Why?
because a couple of Republican legislators had disputed this meaning of the 3-5th clause. They said the 3-5th clause is not about this. It's not a statement of racism. It's not a statement of white supremacy. And CNN is pushing back on this and they have an expert on and the expert goes, yeah the 3-5th clause actually does support white supremacy and he makes two points about it.
One, the Three-Fifths Clause, on the face of it, appears to declare blacks to be inferior.
And second, he says that the Three-Fifths Clause was a compromise that strengthened the South, and by strengthening the political power of the South, it fortified and perhaps extended slavery.
Now, I want to address these points directly.
Let's start with the three-fifths clause itself.
There was in the dispute over the Constitution and in the negotiations among the states, by and large, a loose alliance of the northern states and a loose alliance of the southern states.
This was sort of based on cultural and regional identity.
These were really different parts of the country.
In many ways, people initially didn't even think of themselves as Americans.
They thought of themselves as Virginians or from Massachusetts or Pennsylvanians and so on.
So creating a country out of this was not an easy task.
And so the north and the south were jostling for power.
In the North, the power was in New York and in Massachusetts.
Massachusetts, of course, with its historic importance for the Constitution.
And in the South, the leading state was, of course, Virginia.
But also important were the Carolinas and so on.
So in this dispute...
There was an issue of political representation.
In other words, political representation which decides matters like the number of seats that you have in Congress.
Now, very interestingly, the North, the question became, how are you going to count the slaves?
How are you going to count the slaves in the South?
What is their status going to be?
Are they going to count for one or are they going to count for zero?
Now, amazingly, the South wanted slaves to count for one.
Why? Because the South wanted more representation.
They said, you've got to count the slaves.
That's going to give us more power, more congressmen, and so on.
The North said, no, we want the slaves to count for zero, because they don't really have rights in the South, so we don't want them to count at all.
So, stop right there for a minute and pause to take in the significance of what I just said.
The anti-slavery North wants slaves to count for zero.
And the pro-slavery South wants slaves to count for one.
So clearly this was not an argument about the intrinsic worth, because if it was about the intrinsic worth, it would seem to follow that the North gave slaves zero value, and the South, wonderfully, gives slaves full value.
Oh, a slave is a full person.
No. By and large, what was going on is the two sides were jostling over power, and the three-fifths It was a compromise agreed to by the North and the South in order to say, okay, we're going to give the South some representation, some additional representation.
And so this was the compromise agreed to to get a union, to get the Constitution through.
It's fairly agreed that had this not been granted, the South would not have joined.
Their point was that the North...
We'll now overwhelm us.
So they weren't actually directly fighting about racism or slavery at all.
This was a contest of power between the northern and southern states, and it had to do at the time with a whole bunch of issues that were unrelated to the issue of slavery, which was actually not at that point up for abolition at all.
Later, some of these issues became important, but that was in the 19th century.
So, The first point, which is that the three-fifths clause is some kind of declaration of the, quote, worth of blacks, I consider that now to be thoroughly and decisively refuted.
Which now takes me to my second point, which is, is it the case?
And this, I guess, is the point that CNN was making with its so-called expert, is, is it the case that by agreeing to this, by granting this compromise, the North gave the South more power than it would otherwise have, And in that sense, fortified the institution of slavery.
Now, this is a little bit more plausible argument, but of course it raises the key question.
If you think, meaning it's very easy today, you know, 200 years later, sit back and go, the North should never have granted this compromise to the South.
The North should have held firm and insisted that slaves should count for zero so the North would maintain maximum power.
Well, the North tried to do that.
So one of the problems really with, and this is a problem really with history itself, is it's very easy in a kind of armchair sense, you know, I call it, it seems to me history.
It seems to me that the North should not have granted this.
Well, it may seem to you like that, but you have seasoned statesmen at the table across from each other in a difficult negotiation.
And if you notice, the negotiation falls where?
It sort of falls at the midpoint.
If the North wants slaves to count for zero, and the South wants slaves to count for one, the midpoint is 0.5, and the agreement is 0.6.
So the agreement is, by and large, what typically happens in a negotiation.
Two people are arguing, you want to charge $50, I want to pay $25, and we end up at $35.
We end up somewhere in the middle.
This is what practical statesmen do.
So the North wasn't In a sense, granting access to the North was trying to get a union, the same as the South.
And out of this negotiation comes the three-fifths clause.
Again, the bottom line of it is, at the very least, we can say that this was a case where having a union turned out to be the vehicle for ending slavery.
Think about it. If there had been no union, if the founders had failed, if, let's just say, the states went their own separate ways, what would have happened?
Well, the southern states might have formed their own nation, and then you might have had a separate northern nation.
These nations may or may not have been at peace.
It's very difficult to know what would have happened.
This is what sometimes we call counterfactual history.
What if? You know, what if the Germans won World War II? What if World War I had ended differently?
And so on. We can never know the answer to those things.
What we do know is what did happen.
And when we look at what happened, we see, A, that there was no kind of gratuitous concession by the north.
This was a tough-fought negotiation.
The Three-Fifths Clause, in a sense, becomes reasonable given the original conditions demanded by both sides.
And second, it has nothing to do with the intrinsic worth of blacks.
This is what the critical studies theorists want to camouflage.
They want to suppress. They want to run roughshod over the complexity of history.
They want to turn the three-fifths clause because I would call it the ignoramus's reading of the clause.
If you knew nothing about the clause, you'd go...
Wow, man, this is really scary.
They declare that blacks are three-fifths of a human being.
I mean, I need to put on my No Three-Fifths Clause t-shirt and go protest somewhere.
I need to burn something.
So this is woke sensibility, and you're basically dealing with unstable people responding to ignorant claims.
And the problem is that our academic institutions have been corrupted and infected with this ideology very often.
What I've just said, for example, which is indisputable history.
I mean, I defy anyone to come out and show me that I'm wrong on the facts of the matter.
I'm not. But by excluding these arguments, excluding this point of view, relying on the sort of argumentum ad ignorantium, the argument that relies on the stupidity of the audience...
This is really how critical race theory makes headway.
I wanted to talk to you about MyPillow and how it changed Debbie's sleeping habits.
When she first began to sleep on Mike Lindell's pillows, she began sleeping right through the night.
Because of that change of life, she tried everything and nothing worked until she found this wonderful pillow.
She also has a body pillow.
Now, the cool thing about these MyPillows, the signature product of Mike Lindell, is that they don't go flat.
You can wash and dry them as often as you want.
They maintain their shape.
They're made in the USA for a limited time.
MyPillow is offering these premium MyPillows for the lowest price ever.
You can get a queen-size premium MyPillow for $29.98.
It's regularly $69.98.
So that's a $40 savings.
KingPillows are only $5 more.
All the MyPillow products come with a 10-year warranty and a 60-day money-back guarantee.
Go to MyPillow.com and use promo code Dinesh.
You'll get deep discounts on all MyPillow products, the Geezer Dream bed sheets, the MyPillow mattress topper, and MyPillow towel sets.
Call 800-876-0227 or go to MyPillow.com.
Don't forget to use promo code Dinesh.
I want to really thank you for watching my podcast or listening to my podcast.
And now, well, I guess I'm approaching four months of doing this, and it's really fun for me.
I've never had a regular podium, sort of a forum before.
I do the books occasionally.
Of course, I do speaking and the movies, but those typically come out once a year or, in some cases, every couple of years.
This is a chance for me to respond, to react to, and kind of give my take on issues day by day.
Now, my last movie, Trump Card, is based upon my book, United States of Socialism.
And even though the movie, Trump Card, it may seem that it's somehow out of date, but it's not.
Why? Because the movie is really about what would happen.
It lays out what the Democrats stand for, what they believe.
What they're up to. It's prophetic in the same way that my earlier film, 2016, was.
It called Obama. It goes, this is who the guy is.
This is what he's going to do.
And sure enough, those are the things that he did.
Same here. I called out the movement towards the United States of Socialism is going to mean A, B, C, D, E. It's kind of eerie for me, having done this, to now watch this movie playing itself out.
On the real stage of the world and from Washington, D.C. Now, Trump Card is available on a whole bunch of platforms.
You can see it on iTunes.
You can get it on Amazon, Amazon Prime, YouTube, Xfinity, Verizon, Dish.
But you can also get it on Salem.
Now, Salem is the company, the media company that I'm partnering with to do this podcast.
And Salem has its own platform.
It's called SalemNow, SalemNow.com.
And on SalemNow.com, you can watch Drunk Card.
But they're also offering a special on the physical DVDs.
If you want to have a DVD... And show it to people.
And those DVDs are now like $9.95.
So they're a great deal. And you can get it by going to SalemNow.com and ordering it from there.
So great gift.
Great thing to have at home.
And I think you'll see post-election how this movie, made before the election, started a year before the election, Really calls it.
And thus, lays out the path forward, but also lays out ways in which we can mount an effective ongoing resistance.
Now, it's time for our mailbox question, so let's go to it.
Listen. Hi, Dinesh.
Well, it's been 100 days since Biden's been in office, and I encountered a website, FiveThirtyEight, which lists his ratings from pollsters Ipsos, Rasmussen, YouGov, Morning Consult.
These are the sources, and it shows an approval rating of an average of about 53%.
Between the cancellation and job losses of the Keystone Pipeline, the gaffes, The evasion from public appearances and questions from the press and especially the border crisis.
Do you think those numbers are correct?
And finally, with the silent majority that's supposed to be out there, how do you explain that?
Thank you. I'd like to say a couple of things in response.
The first thing is, I don't believe that these polls are really all that sound.
And we've seen that not just from the 2020 election.
In the 2020 election, the polls predicted a decisive Biden victory, a sweeping victories for Democratic candidates in the House and the Senate.
Republicans were supposed to have decisively lost both.
And in fact, that was not true.
Republicans held their seats very well, gained seats in the House.
The Senate is, as you know, 50-50.
And that's after the sort of catastrophic post-election runoffs in Georgia.
And of course, the polls were equally off in 2016.
So they clearly understate the conservative vote.
Now... That's the first thing.
I've also seen some data about how these polls are oversampling Democrats.
It appears that the pollsters have gone into the wishful thinking business.
They want to produce an outcome.
It's kind of like the media. The media is supposed to be a reflection of the ideas of the people.
It's supposed to ultimately exhibit publicly, if you will, the debates that are going on in the society.
But in fact, our media doesn't do that.
Similarly, the pollsters, I think, have gone into the let's promote Biden business.
Let's ask people things in a way that's going to make them favorable.
Like, are you feeling good as the nation comes out of COVID? Well, yes, I am.
So you must be feeling pretty good about Biden then.
Well, I guess so.
So this is not polling.
This is basically advocacy disguised as polling.
So bottom line, I don't think we should worry about it.
I think we should continue to make our case.
And the big question will be answered sort of next year, which is, are the American people?
The Democrats have not hesitated to go radical on us.
They're doing it in spades.
They're pushing the envelope.
So the question is, is the ordinary American okay with this?
Or as the ordinary American, you know what?
I don't like surging crime rates.
I don't like surging taxes.
I don't like paying more for gas.
I don't like the fact that we are seeing this kind of breakdown of the guardrails of society.
I don't like the political prosecution of opponents.
I don't like all this censorship that the Democrats are literally baying and cheering for on social media.
So, I'm going to send these people a message that they're not going to forget.
That's the big unanswered question.
I think that the American people are going to get a taste of what democratic socialism looks like.
They're not going to like the taste of it.
And come November 2022, they're going to want to spit it out.
▲
Export Selection