Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

May 12, 2021 - Dinesh D'Souza

01:01:41

TRUMP 1, CHENEY 0 Dinesh D’Souza Podcast Ep 88

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Liz Cheney gets the boot and it's Trump's party now.
	The secrets of the Maricopa County audit.
	And the woman who's taking on Lisa Murkowski in Alaska.
	This is the Dinesh D'Souza podcast.
	The times are crazy and a time of confusion, division, and lies.
	We need a brave voice of reason, understanding, and truth.
	This is the Dinesh D'Souza Podcast.
	The decisive vote to expel Liz Cheney from the number three position in the House leadership for the Republican Party suggests that it's now, well, kind of what we thought it has been, Trump's party.
	That's the direction in which the Republican Party is going.
	Let me begin by talking about the Cheney vote because it seems like at the last minute Cheney was rounding up allies, but weirdly they weren't Republican allies in the House.
	Well, I think.
	I mean, can you really be a leader of one party when you're being cheered by the stalwarts of the opposition?
	I mean, can you really be a union general or leader when you're being cheered on by the Confederacy?
	Kind of at the last minute, Liz Cheney got her strangest supporter, one O.J. Simpson.
	Listen. Watching cable news is all about Liz Cheney.
	Now, I gotta admit, I was not a fan of Liz Cheney.
	Don't get me wrong, I'm 50-50 on her politics, but I didn't like her.
	And then I just realized recently, the reason I didn't like her had to do with her father, probably my least favorite politician of my adult life, former Vice President Dick Cheney.
	Then I saw a show the other day, and I saw a quote by Baltair that said that patriotism was the enemy of mankind.
	Thought about that a little bit.
	Somehow I started thinking about the Republican Party.
	And it seemed that fact-based truth and honesty...
	They seem to be the enemy of many of these Republican politicians.
	And Liz Cheney stands up for the truth.
	And that's got her a lot of heat.
	She may lose her position in the party.
	She may even lose her career as a politician.
	But that is something to be admired, standing up for the truth.
	That's something I know her father wouldn't have done.
	So right now I'm kind of a fan of Liz Cheney.
	In any event, Get your shots.
	Hope you stay healthy.
	God bless. What the heck?
	O.J. Simpson?
	Really? With friends like this?
	I mean, who needs enemies? Now, I don't think there's any point going into the O.J. Simpson diatribe.
	Patriotism is bad.
	Well, first of all, I don't even think he's quoting Voltaire.
	He probably is referring to Samuel Johnson's statement that patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.
	But that doesn't mean what O.J. thinks it means.
	Samuel Johnson didn't mean that patriotism is somehow...
	A negative. Johnson himself was a great British patriot.
	It was one of his reasons for opposing the American Revolution.
	But what Johnson meant is that patriotism can be manipulated for nefarious causes.
	For example, you can use patriotism to justify a kind of unnecessary war in Iraq, for example.
	And then what kills me is O.J. Simpson's reference to the truth.
	The truth. Really, O.J.? Well, why don't you tell us the truth about what happened?
	What is it on Mulholland Drive?
	Or what happened right there on Bundy with Nicole Brown Simpson?
	Give us the truth on that. Or are you still roaming the golf courses of America in search of the real killer?
	I think everyone knows the truth about that one, including the judge, by the way, who you went before when you were accused of stealing your own merchandise.
	And the judge gave you 14 years.
	You know why? Because he wanted the truth to ultimately catch up with you.
	You normally wouldn't have gotten that sentence, OJ, but I think it was time for truth to catch up with you.
	In any event, back to Liz Cheney.
	Now, Liz Cheney is trying to make this sound like this is all about January 6th.
	This is all about her impeachment vote for Trump.
	But let's remember a couple of things.
	First of all... There were other Republicans who voted to impeach, both in the House and in the Senate.
	It was Romney. No one's expelled Romney from his position.
	No one's kicked him out of his committees.
	And even the House Republicans who voted to impeach Trump haven't had any reprisals.
	Now, they might be getting some blowback from their own voters, but that's a whole different thing.
	Remember that the House voted to keep Liz Cheney The vote was pretty decisive, 145 to 61.
	So you can't say, and remember that this was in the immediate aftermath of the Cheney vote.
	So if the House Republicans were really angry with her about voting, you'd think that right then and there they'd be like, that's it, that's enough.
	And you'd get this kind of emotionally driven vote to expel her.
	No, the House voted, let's keep her.
	So clearly what's happened here is that a lot of people who voted for Liz Cheney the last time have changed their minds.
	And the question really is why?
	I think the answer has something to do, weirdly, with Dick Cheney.
	It's sometimes said that hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.
	But I think in this case, hell hath no fury like a woman whose father is scorned.
	Trump kind of humiliated Dick Cheney by making him out to be a warmonger.
	And Liz Cheney, I think, is out to settle the score.
	And this has given her crusade against Trump a kind of monomaniacal dimension.
	She's sort of fighting an internal war within her own party against probably the most popular figure in the party.
	So there's a kind of unhinged craziness to this whole thing.
	And the other Republicans, even the ones that don't like Trump, are like, listen, our real fight is against Biden.
	Look at the horrific stuff that this man is doing.
	Look at all the stuff that's happening, not just in politics, but in the culture with the sanction of the Biden administration.
	That's the real enemy.
	But Liz Cheney can't see it.
	She's blind to it.
	In fact, there's an article in CNN that says that even after being kicked out, she's going to sort of dedicate her life to making sure Trump never makes it back to the White House.
	So this suggests, if you will, that someone who's lost sight of the political is not even really thinking politically, is thinking, I think, ultimately emotionally and in terms of family vendetta.
	I think for this reason, Republicans wisely have changed their mind about Liz Cheney.
	They've realized that she's more of a liability.
	And if she dedicates herself to this anti-Trump crusade, it's going to be not enough to push her out of the leadership, which has already happened.
	But really to push her out of the house.
	And I bet you that there's a whole movement brewing in Wyoming, which I'm sure Trump will get right behind.
	Trump issued a statement basically chuckling over, you know, you say dancing over Liz Cheney's grave.
	Trump can't help himself in these situations.
	He has to jump in.
	And I'm sure he's going to be lobbying intensely in Wyoming to have Liz Cheney replaced there as well.
	But it's kind of an object lesson to me.
	Sad, really, more than anything else, about a figure who I think had promise and is sincere.
	I mean, Trump says she's a horrible person.
	I don't think she's a horrible person.
	I think that she's a person who's in thrall, caught up, In a kind of family vendetta that she now feels that she has to settle.
	And unfortunately, in trying to settle the vendetta, she is committing her own, you may say, career suicide.
	Nicholas Wade's bombshell article on the origins of COVID continues to sort of have reverberations throughout the political and the health community.
	This was an article in which Wade, by the way, a very respected science writer, he worked for Nature magazine, then for Science magazine, longtime science writer for the New York Times.
	So this is not somebody easily dismissed.
	And Nicholas Wade...
	It talks about the two major theories for the origin of COVID. One, COVID emerged somewhat accidentally from a meat market and a market in the Wuhan area of China.
	It migrated possibly from bats to other animals and from animals to humans.
	That's theory number one.
	That's the theory that's been aggressively promulgated by the health authorities in this country and by the media.
	And then there's theory number two, which is the unpopular theory, the theory that the health authorities and the media have tried to suppress, to dismiss.
	It's a conspiracy.
	It's nonsense.
	It's discredited.
	It's debunked.
	And Wade goes, it's none of those things.
	It's not discredited.
	It's not debunked.
	In fact, neither of these two theories have been properly investigated.
	There has been no examination, think about it, of a virus that has spread worldwide, has left millions, literally millions of casualties in its wake, more than half a million casualties in the United States alone.
	Almost every family touched by it in some dramatic way.
	My kid can't go to school.
	My business has been shut down.
	I know someone who's dead because of coronavirus.
	And because of the lethality of this virus, says Wade, we have reason to believe that some of the people who might have done this are now desperately eager to suppress the facts.
	Well, I'm going to dive into all this, but let me start with Rand Paul, who's sort of just unbelievably effective in this sort of thing, taking on Dr.
	Fauci and asking him directly, is the United States behind funding...
	The Wuhan research lab in China, the lab that might have actually made this virus.
	Listen. Gain-of-function research, as you know, is juicing up naturally occurring animal viruses to infect humans.
	To arrive at the truth, the U.S. government should admit that the Wuhan Virology Institute was experimenting to enhance the coronavirus' ability to infect humans.
	Juicing up super viruses is not new.
	Scientists in the U.S. have long known how to mutate animal viruses to infect humans.
	For years, Dr.
	Ralph Barak, a virologist in the U.S., has been collaborating with Dr.
	Shi Zhengli of the Wuhan Virology Institute, sharing his discoveries about how to create super viruses.
	This gain-of-function research has been funded by the NIH. The collaboration between the U.S., And the Wuhan Virology Institute continues.
	Doctors Barrick and Xi worked together to insert bat virus spike protein into the backbone of the deadly SARS virus and then used this man-made super virus to infect human airway cells.
	Think about that for a moment.
	Yeah, we need to think about that.
	What's so nice here is to have a medical doctor who knows what he's talking about, namely Rand Paul, posing the question here.
	Now Dr. Fauci is a little chameleonic, a little elusive.
	He says, in effect...
	Oh no! I don't currently favor what he calls gain-of-function research.
	By the way, gain-of-function research here is the manufacturing of deadly viruses.
	You take existing toxicity and existing lethality and you combine viruses or you try to take viruses that are infecting animals and figure out...
	How can we increase their lethality?
	Now, the purpose of this, by the way, is not to create a biological weapon or anything like that.
	It is ultimately to try to understand these viruses better, understand the transmission better, come up with better types of responses and cures.
	So the motive here is good, but...
	These scientists are playing a dangerous game.
	And the point that Rand Paul wants to make is that, listen, this could be an experiment gone bad.
	And now Fauci goes, well, we don't fund the Wuhan lab.
	But what he doesn't do is directly answer Rand Paul's question, yeah, you don't fund the Wuhan lab, but don't you fund American institutes, such as the EcoHealth Alliance, Which work in collaboration with the Wuhan lab, sharing information, sharing intelligence, conducting joint experiments, and so on.
	Fauci won't say no to that, I think because he knows that...
	Rand Paul is right.
	And after the exchange, Rand Paul puts out a series of tweets.
	He goes, Here's Rand Paul again.
	He's talking about the EcoHealth Alliance, collaborated with Wuhan Virology Institute.
	Fauci has supported NIH funds for all these labs.
	Now, here's the significance of all this.
	The significance of all this is that And in some ways, weirdly, one can almost see China's point when China expresses outrage that they're being blamed for the virus.
	Because kind of what China's thinking is, wait a minute, this was a project jointly supported by a lot of countries, including the United States.
	Money was flowing to labs in America, working with us to create these deadly viruses.
	And so if one of them got out, maybe it's our negligence that let it out.
	But lots of scientists are involved, lots of health communities are involved in doing this kind of research.
	Now, try to think of the hell to pay that there would be if it was determined, if it was corroborated, that COVID was made in a lab.
	That COVID was not a virus that occurs naturally, coming right out of nature itself.
	Human beings, in their kind of meddlesome desire to figure this stuff out, oh yeah, we can do this, let's do it.
	You know, there's a tendency in science, if you can do it, let's do it.
	You tell these scientists, hey, listen, how about if we combine the DNA of a mouse and a human being?
	They go, yeah, let's do it!
	Let's see what happens. So this desire, you may say, the curiosity that killed the cat, unleashes this deadly virus on the world.
	And when that happens, the people involved, they suddenly realize, oh my gosh.
	This is now all going to come to haunt us.
	We're going to be blamed for it.
	And therefore, let's try to make it seem like it all came out of a market.
	Let's try to make sure it all happened.
	So far from us being the ones responsible, far from us taking the public backlash, we become the rescuers.
	Let's put on our white coats and start making oracular pronouncements.
	Everyone needs to wear a mask, and they might be wearing a mask since 2030.
	So the bottom line of it is, you may have the very people who are showing up, you may say, here as the firefighters.
	They might be the arsonists in this case.
	That is the important question that Nicholas Wade has brought front and center, and that is the question that demands, demands public investigation.
	You know, most of us sleep on our pillow for eons, or we don't begin to think that, man, this is a little bit gross.
	We need to change out our pillow.
	It's time for a new pillow.
	The good news is that Mike Lindell has come up with an amazing pillow.
	This is his signature item.
	That's why the company is called MyPillow.
	He's taught me, Mike has, that a pillow, like a watch or a phone or a car, can actually be a work of art.
	MyPillow pillows won'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, Mike Lindell is offering his premium MyPillows for his lowest price ever.
	You can get a queen-size premium MyPillow for $29.98.
	Normally $69.98.
	That's a $40 savings.
	KingPillow's only $5 more.
	All the MyPillow products...
	10-year warranty, 60-day money-back guarantee.
	You'll also get deep discounts on all the other MyPillow products, the Giza Dream bed sheets, the MyPillow mattress topper, and MyPillow towel sets.
	Call 800-876-0227 and use promo code Dinesh.
	Or just go to MyPillow.com.
	Make sure to use promo code Dinesh.
	I've been talking about the origins of coronavirus and the theory advanced now by the science writer Nicholas Wade that COVID might have originated at the Wuhan lab,
	might have been actually made there and made by organizations that have received money from the U.S. government working in collaboration with the Wuhan lab and That COVID might not, in fact, have arisen, quote, naturally from just the Wuhan meat market.
	Now, Wade makes the point that there is no definitive case on either side.
	But, he says, A, this has not been properly investigated, and B, if you look at the clues, and there are multiple clues, and you put them together, you notice that they all fall on the same side.
	They all point in one direction toward...
	The manufactured in the lab theory.
	And so, Wade says this is a theory that deserves scrutiny.
	Now, what's remarkable is that in the many months leading up to now, journalists and fact-checkers have routinely described the idea that COVID came out of the Wuhan lab as a conspiracy theory and as, quote, debunked.
	It's important to realize that these journalists pretended as if they had done independent research into what happened.
	That they knew something that we didn't know.
	Which is that there was real evidence that suggested that this was a natural, a naughty lab manufactured virus.
	So they were lying.
	In fact, they didn't know.
	But they wanted to side with the health establishment.
	They wanted to cover up for any scientists who had been involved, guilty, of manufacturing these viruses.
	They wanted to create a narrative and they wanted to hold to it even in the face of rival facts and theories, which they didn't bother to examine or investigate.
	Very interestingly, when Senator Cotton, this is Tom Cotton of Arkansas, who didn't even say that the virus came out of a lab.
	He simply said, that needs to be investigated.
	There was a roar of media attacks on Cotton, and the idea is that Cotton is peddling a conspiracy theory.
	Let me give you some examples.
	Here's Alexander Stevenson of the New York Times.
	The conspiracy theory lacks evidence and has been dismissed by scientists.
	It doesn't lack evidence.
	There is evidence for it.
	There's, in fact, no evidence for the rival theory.
	And by and large, the scientists who are dismissing the theory are scientists directly involved in many cases in Wuhan lab collaboration.
	The most prominent scientist debunking the conspiracy is the very guy who would be blamed if the virus was traced to Wuhan.
	Here is an article...
	Huffington Post, Senator Tom Cotton still pitching debunked theory about coronavirus.
	And no one thinks of asking, debunked by whom?
	Where is this debunking?
	Where is the factual refutation of this idea?
	And the truth of it is, and Nicholas Wade points this out, there never was.
	There never was a refutation.
	But nevertheless, if you can enroll enough media, if you can get the digital fact checkers on your side, you can, in a sense, manufacture, just as the scientists could have manufactured the virus, you can manufacture facts about the virus.
	And this is the level of lying that we're dealing with now in our society.
	Here's the Kaiser Family Foundation.
	On its news page, Arkansas Senator Stokes debunked conspiracy that coronavirus was manufactured by Chinese government.
	Well, you do have the Chinese so-called bat lady.
	This is the prominent scientist in China who is conducting this so-called gain of function.
	Gain of function here means taking existing viruses and enhancing them, pumping them with chemicals and pumping them with all kinds of stuff intended to soup them up.
	Make them even more lethal than they are.
	We know this is going on.
	It's going on with the support of the Chinese government to a degree.
	This kind of research is going on with the support of the U.S. government, including one Dr.
	Fauci. One of the writers contacted the Washington Post, their writer Paulina Ferozzi, peddling this debunked conspiracy.
	And of course she doesn't respond.
	Why? Because what happens is when the facts come to light, all these people run like rats.
	They run into hiding.
	They shut off their Twitter account.
	They block people. They don't want to be held accountable.
	They're not, you may say, I can't say man enough because we're talking about a woman.
	They're not decent enough to say, hey listen, we got this completely wrong.
	We were suckered by this guy who's making money in his collaboration with Wuhan.
	They can't say that. They don't have an ounce of decency.
	They will either go back and stealth edit their old articles or just leave Who cares if all this stuff is proven to be wrong?
	Let's just move on. No one's really going to notice.
	No one's really going to hold us accountable.
	And they count on their allies and buddies in the media to support these lies, which then take on a life of their own.
	The bottom line of it is there's a lot of accountability to be had, some of it to come from the scientists, some of it from Fauci, some of it from the health establishment, but also some of it from the media.
	You know, until I moved to Texas, I wasn't really a major steak eater, but now I've become kind of a steak connoisseur, just like Debbie.
	But Debbie likes her cooking simple and easy.
	The great thing about Omaha Steaks is that the food is delicious, and I say this as a foodie who's not very easily convinced.
	Omaha Steaks saved us during the COVID lockdown.
	I've got so many favorites.
	I can talk about beef stroganoff, fully cooked pot roast, chicken and dumplings, jambalaya, and then, of course, the steak itself.
	Now, summer's almost here. That means backyard grill outs, and it's not complete without Omaha Steaks.
	Visit omahasteaks.com and enter keyword Dinesh in the search bar, To order the mouth-watering Let's Go Grill package today.
	Not only will you get great savings, you get the tasty bonus of 12 ultra-rich, juicy Omaha Steakburgers free.
	That's almost 4 pounds of free burgers.
	To top it off, you also get $20 off on your first order.
	The Let's Go Grill package includes 4 butcher-cut filet mignons, 4 boneless pork chops, 1 pound of chicken breast, 4 kielbasa sausages, And more.
	Debbie and I love warm weather.
	We can't wait to get to the grill for some great burgers, steaks, and more.
	Omaha Steaks guarantees you'll have the best steak of your life.
	Go to omahasteaks.com.
	Use the code Dinesh in the search bar.
	And for a limited time, 12 free Omaha Steakburgers.
	$20 off at the checkout on your first order.
	That's omahasteaks.com.
	Keyword, Dinesh.
	Just as a lot of Republicans decided it's time for Liz Cheney to go, I think that there's fairly widespread sentiment in the Republican Party, shared by me, among others, that it's time for Lisa Murkowski to go.
	Lisa Murkowski's been sort of a thorn in the side of her own party for a while now, and on critical votes like the Trump impeachment, she has sort of sold out the Make America Great Again movement.
	I'm thrilled that Kelly Shabaka, who's a prominent figure in Alaska, I think a native-born Alaskan, she was commissioner of the Alaska Department of Administration.
	She's a serious candidate and she's jumping into the ring to challenge Lisa Murkowski.
	Kelly, thank you for waking up a little early in Alaska to come on the podcast.
	I really appreciate it.
	By the way, I've been to Alaska, I think twice.
	I was on a cruise in a bunch of Alaskan ports and got a little peek at Alaska.
	And then Debbie and I were in Alaska for me to give a talk.
	I gotta say, it's one place that is so different than the rest of America.
	It almost feels like you're in some ways on a different planet.
	Tell us what's unique about Alaska from the point of view of a native Alaskan.
	Well, first, it's an honor to be with you today, so thank you.
	I love our state.
	It's number one in my heart.
	But I think the thing that makes us most different from the rest of the United States is we're really dependent on our natural resources up here.
	We're really driven in our economy by our oil and gas jobs and our mining jobs.
	That's our predominant source of income.
	It counts for directly 25% of our jobs in Alaska.
	That's pretty unique for us versus the other states in the United States.
	Now, interestingly, you mentioned to me right before we got on that you have through your family a Dartmouth connection.
	Tell us about that. I do, and I know that you've got a strong Dartmouth connection as well.
	My father-in-law grew up in the jungles of the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
	He tells stories about sliding on banana leaves down the mudslides instead of going to school.
	But he got a USAID scholarship when he was a kid, and he came over and went to Dartmouth.
	You would think it was funny.
	They actually thought that Dartmouth would be most similar in its environment to the jungles of Congo.
	Not sure why. But he actually did his undergrad in his business school.
	Both in six years.
	And then he became a banker with Citibank and went all over the world, setting up and running Citibank banks.
	He met my mother-in-law when he was in college.
	They got married back in the 60s.
	So they were an interracial couple then.
	And then I met my husband actually in law school.
	And you can probably see his picture behind me.
	We've been married 20 years now and have five kids.
	And it's just, it's been one of those wonderful American stories of living the American dream, a lot like your story.
	And My husband and I have had also just a really incredible story in my father-in-law's footsteps.
	It's just been amazing. Now, Kelly, you've worked all over the various departments in the government in Alaska.
	You've worked in the Postal Service, the Federal Trade Commission, the Department of Justice, before you joined the Governor's Administration.
	Sort of what is it about your experience today?
	In government or outside of government that told you something is a little wrong here and I need to jump in the fray.
	And in particular, what is it about Lisa Murkowski that said to you that, hey, she's not the best representative for Alaska?
	It's a great question.
	So I'll back up and say, you know, my parents moved to Alaska looking for more opportunity and they started out pretty poor.
	For a while they were even homeless.
	And my mom got one of those oil and gas jobs that really helped us to climb out of poverty and into the middle class.
	So similar to my husband's family story, we've lived the American dream and struggled to become middle class.
	And then I fought to be first in our family to go to college.
	Just like you said with my work experience, I got to enter government and look out for the American people.
	It's what my parents always told me is, you know, who's looking out for us down here?
	Who's holding these people accountable?
	Who's holding insiders accountable, exposing waste, fraud, and abuse?
	What is exactly happening with our taxpayer dollars?
	Because it's hard when you're trying to work your way up from the bottom and live that American dream.
	And that's what I was doing in all those federal agencies is looking out for us American taxpayers and holding them accountable.
	Well, when you're up here in Alaska, Dinesh, you can see we have more resource than any state in the nation.
	A lot of people don't know we're over twice the size of Texas.
	When you've got this much resource, you have a population of about 730,000 people in our whole state.
	But you can see when you're up here that we're living under economic oppression.
	So Biden sits there and says that our nation's on the move.
	We're not. We're on a meltdown.
	And everything that he's doing with his policies and his executive orders, he's attacking us and Lisa Murkowski is supporting him.
	She decided to pick a fight with Donald Trump, but his policies were amazing for our state.
	He opened us up for economic development and oil and gas jobs.
	And on day one of his administration, Biden shut us down.
	But those were the jobs that took my mom and our family out of poverty and into the middle class.
	Those are the jobs that help Alaskans.
	And now those are the jobs that are being shut down.
	And so someone's got to stand up for Alaska.
	Someone's got to fight for us.
	And there's a fire in our heart up here to rebuild our state.
	It's not just me who wants to do it.
	There's a lot of us who want to do it.
	So this race isn't really about me.
	It's about us. We want to take our seat back from the Murkowskis.
	The Murkowski family has had that seat for 40 years.
	And her father gave her that seat when he was appointed governor.
	And we want our seat back because we want it to represent Alaska.
	Do you think that in Murkowski's case, having kind of risen up through the establishment, the elevator, you could say, of family connections, that she's more now a product of that establishment and she perhaps even sees Biden as part of that same establishment?
	And to that degree, you're running a campaign of, you may say, ordinary people against these elites.
	Is that an accurate way to describe what's going on?
	Absolutely. And I would say Lisa Murkowski has always been a part of the political elite class.
	When my family was struggling living in a tent over in Russian Jack's Spring Park, her family was living in a house with a pool along the river up in Fairbanks.
	Nobody lives in a house like that in Alaska.
	We're the families that struggle with work and grit and determination to make a name for ourselves and to kind of build ourselves up by our boots up here in Alaska.
	That's what we do.
	But Lisa Murkowski has never had to do that.
	She's always had everything handed to her and she's never had to work for it.
	But that's not an Alaskan story.
	Up here we work for it.
	She doesn't know what it's like to be an Alaskan.
	She's always been part of the political elite.
	And that's the people she votes with.
	That's the people who give her money.
	That's the people that she likes to associate with.
	She even moved into her dad's house on Capitol Hill when he gave her that Senate seat.
	And that's exactly what we all feel up here in Alaska.
	And we all know intuitively in America, those are the people who are making the decisions that are leading our nation right down the drain, right?
	And so we need to take back those seats and those votes, and we needed to represent the people of the United States.
	Kelly, as a last question, I've gotten wind of the fact that CNN, which presents itself as a kind of reliable news network, we're trying to tell it like it is, has been actively getting involved in the campaign to go against you, to smear you.
	Can you talk a little bit about...
	Because I think it's important for people to know how these news organizations, how they operate on the ground to feed information that they think is damaging to you.
	Talk about the role of CNN in trying to undermine your campaign.
	Sure. In month one of our campaign, CNN decided to operate like a rival candidate or like...
	Lisa Murkowski's personal news organization and decided to do a hit piece on me.
	But more than that, they started to shop it around to any news source and any blogger here in Alaska that would pick up that news story and run with it.
	They've never done that before.
	Fortunately, one of the news organizations up here said, this is weird, and they exposed it and said, you know, news organization that's trying to smear one of our candidates is operating like a rival candidate or opposition piece, and they exposed it for what it is.
	This is what CNN does.
	They've even been exposed for this by Project Veritas for taking credit for trying to take out President Trump.
	This is what they do. They actually have an agenda and that's not a legitimate news organization.
	News is supposed to be unbiased and reporting on the truth.
	Well, because they've been exposed for what they're doing, I think it's actually just given me extra wind in the campaign because what it shows is Lisa Murkowski is scared.
	CNN is scared that they're gonna lose Lisa Murkowski's vote in the Senate.
	She sucks up to CNN. She's a shoo-in for the liberals.
	And she's helping the Biden administration and getting jobs, getting their job done and what they want.
	And what they want to do is they want to take out Alaska.
	They want to shut down our oil and gas industry and they want to push our climate change agenda.
	And that's what they're all about.
	And that's what Lisa Murkowski is enabling.
	And that's what CNN is trying to get done.
	And so we're trying to stand against that.
	And what I'd ask is if If your viewers and your listeners want to help us, they can at kelly4ak.com because you know what?
	CNN and that liberal machine, they're all funding Lisa Murkowski and us Alaskans need help at kelly4ak.com.
	Awesome. Well, I urge people to check it out, kelly4ak.com.
	And thanks for coming on the podcast.
	I really appreciate it.
	I'm so honored to be with you.
	Thank you so much for your time.
	Does it make sense that the same company that controls half of online retail also passively eavesdrops on your private conversations at home?
	What about the idea that a single company controls 90% of internet searches, runs your email service, and gets to track everything you do on your smartphone?
	Big tech is more powerful than most countries are, and they profit by exploiting your personal data.
	It's time to put a layer of protection between your online activity and these tech juggernauts.
	And that's why I use ExpressVPN.
	Think about how much of your life is on the internet.
	Sadly, every site you visit, video you watch, or message you send gets tracked and data mined.
	But when you run ExpressVPN on your device, the software hides your IP address, something big tech can use to personally identify you.
	So ExpressVPN makes your activity harder to trace and sell to advertisers.
	ExpressVPN also encrypts 100% of your internet data.
	To keep you safe from hackers and eavesdroppers on your network.
	And ExpressVPN does all of this without slowing your connection.
	That's why it's rated the number one VPN service by CNET and Wired.
	What I like most about ExpressVPN is how easy it is to use.
	Download the app on your phone or computer, tap one button, and you're protected.
	Stop handing over your personal data to the big tech monopoly that mines your activity and sells your information.
	Protect yourself with the VPN I trust.
	To keep me safe online, visit expressvpn.com.
	That's expressvpn.com.
	To get three extra months free, go to expressvpn.com.
	I'm watching with great interest the Maricopa County audit of the 2020 election because this is a very good chance to look close up at what happened in one significant county.
	Remember, this is the county that gave Biden the state of Arizona.
	There were enough votes right here in Maricopa that tipped Arizona into the Biden camp, somewhat unexpectedly.
	Biden was not expected to win Arizona.
	Now, when we look at what's happening in Maricopa, we don't have the final results of the audit, but what we do have is some very interesting actors jumping on the stage in the middle of the audit, and their conduct is revealing.
	And we also have the first bombshell revelation out of the Maricopa audit.
	So, the people doing the audit This is, by the way, an independent company that's conducting this audit.
	And these guys said, okay, well, in order for us to check out what's happening in Maricopa, let's have the passwords to the voting machines.
	And at first, Maricopa County goes, well, we can't give them to you.
	But now it turns out, this appears to be the case, that they don't have them.
	That Maricopa County was running an election...
	And they themselves don't have the passwords to the voting machines.
	By the way, they're also trying to block the independent company from getting the routers that give you access to the machines.
	So suddenly, it has become obvious that the company running the machines, by the way, Dominion, Appears, at least as far as we know, to have had sole access to what's going on in those machines.
	Unbelievable! Unbelievable!
	Now, the Arizona Audit Director, Ken Bennett, has said, enough is enough.
	We're going to subpoena all these people.
	We're going to make you produce those passwords.
	We're going to get access to the routers.
	We can't conduct a full audit without having this information.
	Very interestingly, Maricopa County Sheriff Paul Penzone, who's a Democrat, by the way, is jumping into this going, we can't give you access!
	And he goes, why? Well, according to this guy, he goes, because, quote, it would have horrendous consequences for law enforcement.
	Wait, what?
	The sheriff is basically saying that law enforcement somehow requires access to this sensitive data, voting data.
	Who voted? Who didn't vote?
	So this appears to be a pure smokescreen.
	And by the way, the Arizona audit director goes, listen, I'm going to subpoena that guy to make him come and explain, number one, what the heck does law enforcement, which is in a different building, has its own data, what does this have to do with voting data?
	Please explain. That hasn't been explained.
	Kind of right on cue, the Biden administration has jumped in.
	The federal government has sent a threatening letter to the auditors basically saying this, and this is so telling.
	They're telling the auditors, you cannot do signature checks, and moreover, you can't even call or check in person to see if voter addresses are correct.
	Think of how revealing this is.
	In other words, someone says, I voted, and here's my address.
	People go, okay, let's see if that's you, and if you live with that address.
	The Biden administration goes, you can't do that.
	Why? Let's listen to their reasoning.
	I'm now quoting their letter. They say that this...
	Description of the proposed work of the audit, quote,"...raises concerns regarding potential intimidation of voters." Intimidation of voters?
	They already voted. Where's the intimidation?
	How are they being intimidated by checking to make sure they still live at the address that they said they live at?
	Well, as it turns out, here's the Biden people.
	They go, quote,"...such investigative efforts can have a significant intimidating effect on qualified voters that can deter them from seeking to vote in the future." So, in other words, don't check their address because it might scare them.
	Wow! You know, I may not want to vote the next time because, after all, they're trying to find out if I really live where I say I lived.
	The bottom line of it is, I think what many of us suspected, that the Democratic Party is the party of allowing shenanigans.
	The Democratic Party is the party that makes it easy for all kinds of irregularities.
	And yeah, let me say the word, cheating to go on.
	They are acting like the guilty party.
	Their actions, even to date, show very clearly they don't want this audit, they don't really want things to be checked out, they don't want to make sure things are on the up and up, probably because in November of 2020, they weren't.
	Hi, this is Debbie D'Souza.
	You've heard me talking about Nutramedix, the professional supplement brand trusted by doctors since 1993.
	And which donates a minimum of 50% of their profits to global charities and missions.
	Dinesh and I want to support a company like that.
	And you should too.
	This may be a little too personal, but I'm going through menopause.
	So I want to recommend Nutramedix's Female Health Support Kit.
	Ladies, as we age, our hormones and bone density decrease.
	Not good. That being said, This is the supplement kit I trust to help with these changes.
	This kit is filled with essential minerals, hormone stabilizers, energy producing vitamins that aid in bone health, metabolism of food for energy, blood sugar support, and immune function to help us get through those busy days.
	Order the Female Health Support Kit now for $79.95 and get 20% off by using code Dinesh during checkout.
	That's Nutramedics.com.
	Support your health while supporting charities and missions around the world.
	Go to Nutramedics.com and use the code Dinesh for 20% off.
	That's N-U-T-R-A-M-E-D-I-X dot com.
	And use the code Dinesh for 20% off.
	The Washington Post is screaming about the new voter integrity law that Ron DeSantis has just signed in Florida.
	And by the way, we should sort of figure out how to read the media.
	When the Post is screaming about it, that's probably because it's an incredibly good law.
	And so sure enough, let's read their rhetoric.
	The Florida measure adds hurdles to voting by mail.
	Yeah, they've put some hurdles.
	You have to jump over the hurdles.
	Restricts the use of drop boxes and prohibits any actions that could influence those standing in line to vote, which voting rights advocates said is likely to discourage nonpartisan groups from offering food and water, blah, blah, blah.
	Bottom line, DeSantis has actually signed the best voter integrity law in the country.
	It's a model for the other states.
	It's better than the Georgia law.
	Why? Because it really goes to the heart of all the different ways in which shenanigans and cheating can happen.
	And it tackles them one by one.
	It looks, for example, at the possibility of voter fraud coming from invalid ballots, illegal ballots, mail-in ballots, Unmonitored drop-off boxes where anything can happen to the drop box because no one's really monitoring it.
	Questionable voter authenticity.
	Third-party ballot manipulation.
	You have things to worry about in the nursing home.
	Keep watching TV. I'll fill out your ballot.
	Unsolicited ballot mass mailings.
	Contaminated voter rolls.
	The Florida law is on top of all of this.
	That's why the Post is running scared.
	Now, the simple fact of it is even though we keep hearing about how these measures to really confirm and authenticate voters are forms of voter restriction, the simple truth of it is all over Europe, they have these laws.
	They don't allow these shenanigans.
	In Europe, for example, two-thirds of Europe We're good to go.
	Otherwise, no.
	Now, just recently I see in The Guardian that the Queen of England is just declaring, issuing a statement, reflecting official policy, by the way, voter ID for all of Britain.
	And it's kind of funny because if you read the article, it turns out that the Brits, who obviously have to validate voters, it doesn't seem to be all that controversial, but they quote American leftists going, oh, this is a problem.
	This is going to discourage people who can't get ID from voting.
	So you can see how the left is trying, in America, is trying to take its nonsense global.
	They're trying to create, you may almost say, a global shenanigan operation.
	And so, they're trying to export, in this case, what seems to me to be American electoral corruption to countries that actually are trying to do a better job to straighten out their voting habits.
	Bottom line, DeSantis is on the right track.
	The Queen is on the right track.
	Most of the Europeans are on the right track.
	Democracy and one man, one vote means what it says.
	We want voters who are eligible to vote casting votes.
	We don't want voters who are not eligible to vote canceling out the votes of eligible voters.
	Debbie and I just got our gold in the mail from Birch Gold.
	And we're kind of exciting to open it up.
	And I was laughing because, you know, if you have money in the bank or the stock market, it's kind of like a number on a page.
	It's kind of nothing. But with gold, you got this physical gold.
	I was sort of playing with it. I kind of felt like I was one of those dwarves in one of those Disney movies, you know.
	But it's also necessary.
	Why? Because we're dealing with an administration that is totally out of control.
	It Who's going to pay for all these outrageous programs?
	Clearly, the Biden administration thinks they're playing with monopoly money.
	Now, for years, even decades, I never invested in gold, just the stock market.
	But now I'm seriously worried with what's going on in Washington, D.C. No sense of fiscal responsibility.
	So 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 group I purchase from and who 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 tied to the stock market into an IRA backed by precious metals.
	It's your hedge against inflation.
	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 a better business peer, or countless five-star reviews, Birch Gold can help you too.
	Text Dinesh to 484848 and invest in gold before it's too late.
	I talked yesterday about the philosopher George Berkeley and about his astonishing idea that the material world, the physical, external material world, does not exist.
	And that all that exists in the world are minds.
	And all of reality is mental, not physical.
	Now, I wanted to...
	I wanted to...
	Just remember, I was doing a series on disconcerting ideas that we should think about.
	By the way, these are not ideas that I, you know, agree with completely or endorse.
	But they're ideas that I think we should not be afraid of.
	We should be willing to examine, think about...
	And also refute in some cases.
	I mentioned three ideas.
	I mentioned Darwin's theory of evolution, which I generally endorse, but I have important criticisms of and reservations about.
	Many people, for example, think evolution is sort of random.
	It's a product of chance.
	I don't think so. I think if you look at evolution from the beginning, you see what the biologist Simon Conway Morris has called the arrow of evolution.
	Evolution is directional.
	It moves from very simple unicellular creatures to multicellular creatures to creatures that have consciousness, like us, that can turn around and look at evolution.
	So this notion that evolution is somehow random, I think is absurd.
	Similarly, I don't think that Einstein's theories, which I mentioned second, are very disconcerting, very outrageous.
	By the way, a lot of them have been heavily verified, but they're not complete theories.
	Einstein's general relativity, there's a contradiction between it and quantum mechanics.
	So the two biggest theories of modern science don't kind of reconcile with each other.
	So there's, I think, a search for a third theory, a new theory, that would encompass both of those theories.
	So, we're not talking here about final judgments.
	We're talking about contested judgments, but judgments we should think about.
	Now, back to Berkeley.
	And again, if you were to ask me, Dinesh, are you literally saying that you don't believe in an external world?
	Of course I do. You don't believe in the existence of your wife?
	You think she's a product of your imagination?
	No, I don't. I think there is a real world.
	And I think that the real thrust of Berkeley is more to say that we can't know certain things, know them definitively, know them in the sense that Descartes meant when he said, you know, how do we know what we know?
	How do we know anything for sure?
	And And what Berkeley says, in effect, is all we have is our perceptions.
	All we have is our experiences.
	So we believe that there's an independent outside world, and our experiences and our perceptions match that world.
	But Berkeley is like, we don't have that independent world.
	Everything that we perceive comes to us through our perceptions, and to that degree is a product of our experiences.
	Now, Debbie raised an interesting point after the show.
	She's like, well, how is it the case that independent people can look at the same thing?
	Let's say, for example, well, here's Berkeley's book.
	We can look at Berkeley's book and we can go, there's Berkeley's book.
	There's an independent object in the world and we all see it.
	So how can it be a product of the mind when we can independently validate that we have the same experience?
	Well, I think Berkeley's answer would go something like this.
	The reason we have the same experience is because we have the same type of mind.
	We're all human beings, and as human beings, we have, you may say, human apparatus.
	And that human apparatus is the human mind.
	And since human minds are structured the same way, they're going to have the same experiences.
	Now, Berkeley goes further.
	At the end of the day, what Berkeley is saying is that in the world, there are only minds.
	And then there is one more mind.
	You may call it the ultimate mind.
	God's mind. And Berkeley says everything that we call reality is nothing more than the experiences.
	Mental experiences that God's mind transmits to our minds.
	I'm going to state this a little more precisely.
	There's an infinite spirit, which is God.
	There are a number of finite spirits.
	That's us. God made us and is in communication with us via His world.
	It is God who gives us all the experiences that we have.
	So what we call the world...
	Is God's language to us.
	And the intelligible regularities of the world, the laws of science, mathematical equations, etc., are the grammar and syntax of that language.
	That is the structure of divine communication to human beings.
	So you can see here Berkeley, and some of this will seem a little whacked, I've been thinking about this stuff for years to even get my head around it.
	But kind of you can see Berkeley here, the theologian.
	Berkeley was an Anglican divine.
	I think he was reacting against Thomas Hobbes.
	Thomas Hobbes was the great...
	Well, the founder of liberalism, in a sense, the writer of the great work Leviathan, but Hobbes was a materialist.
	At the end of the day for Hobbes, you have material objects in the world.
	We, human beings, are nothing more than material objects in the world.
	We operate like atoms and molecules.
	We operate like stones and trees.
	We're not fundamentally different in any way.
	And Berkeley goes, that's atheism.
	This notion that materialism is all there is, that's the foundation stone, Berkeley's own word.
	It's the foundation stone of atheism.
	And Berkeley goes, I'm going to give this atheism.
	I'm going to give this materialism.
	I'm going to give this idea that material objects are all there is in the world.
	I'm going to give it a giant philosophical up yours.
	And I'm going to do that by pointing out that every material object that we purport to see in the world, any independent object...
	comes to us only through our experiences.
	In fact, if you were to say to somebody, You know, because it seems like Berkeley is sort of denying reality.
	Well, you know, Berkeley, come on.
	You know, there's the Empire State Building.
	And Berkeley would say, well, when you see the Empire State Building, what do you see?
	What's your experience of it?
	Describe it. And you'd say, well, you know, I see it.
	I perceive it. It's tall.
	And I, you know, I smell it.
	I can smell the particles that come off the building, the dust and so on.
	And then I hear it.
	There are sounds coming out of the Empire State Building, and I hear them.
	And that for me is the Empire State Building.
	And Berkeley would say, exactly.
	That for you is the Empire State Building.
	The collection of your perceptions put together.
	The way you hear it, the way you see it, the way you smell it, the way you think about it.
	All mental experiences, by the way, going on inside your mind.
	That is your experience of the Empire State Building.
	That is the Empire State Building.
	And if you posit some other independent Empire State Building that is separate from your experiences, Berkeley goes, where is that?
	The only Empire State Building you know and I know and any of us will ever know is the collection of our experiences of that building and nothing else.
	To put it somewhat differently, if you think of some original Empire State Building...
	Separate from our impressions or copies of it, separate from the way in which we perceive the Empire State Building, what Kant would later call the thing in itself, as opposed to the thing as it appears to us.
	Berkeley goes, there is no thing in itself.
	There are only things as they appear to us, and the sum total of our experiences, that is the thing.
	There is nothing else.
	So this is the scandalous sort of intellectual iconoclasm of Berkeley.
	I presented it forcefully because I believe the way to make a case is to sort of put myself in the guy's shoes and make the case as strongly as I can.
	I've been thinking about these ideas for a long time.
	I want you to think about them.
	At the end of the day, I don't endorse them.
	I don't believe in them.
	But I do believe that they are worth thinking about.
	They're worth reflecting upon.
	And this process is called philosophy.
	At the end of the day, it is a process not threatening to, not undermining of.
	Faith or belief in God certainly didn't undermine Berkeley's faith in God.
	On the contrary, for him, philosophy was a root to God.
	The other day, this was actually a few weeks ago, Debbie and I were having our lattes in the morning and she was looking at my feet and she goes, you need to take better care of your feet.
	I go, what do you mean?
	Nobody sees my feet. She goes, I know, but your feet are really important.
	I'm going to get you a pair of MyPillowMySlippers.
	And I'm like, I have slippers.
	She's like, no, no, no. You need better slippers.
	And so we ordered these MyPillow slippers from Mike Lindell.
	And wow, they're actually pretty amazing.
	Mike has taken over two years to develop these slippers.
	They're designed to wear indoor or outdoor all day long.
	They're made with MyPillow foam and impact gel to help prevent fatigue.
	They're made with quality leather suede.
	For a limited time, Mike Lindell is offering 40% off his new MySlippers.
	The MySlippers are so comfortable.
	You'll not only want some for yourselves, but want some for the whole family.
	Debbie and I love ours. I got the moccasins, by the way.
	She got the slip-ons. Go to MyPillow.com and use promo code Dinesh.
	Deep discounts on all the other MyPillow products, the Giza Dream Sheets, the MyPillow Mattress Topper, MyPillow Towel Sets.
	Call 800-876-0227 or go to MyPillow.com.
	Don't forget to use promo code D-I-N-E-S-H, Dinesh.
	One of the distinguishing features of this show, I'm happy to say, is the quality of the questions, which to me indicates the quality of the listeners and viewers that I have.
	So I'm really happy.
	Do send in questions, audio or video, preferably.
	Send them to questiondinesh at gmail.com.
	Let's go to today's question.
	Listen. With respect to Afghanistan, what has America done right?
	What goals did we achieve and how did our presence improve Afghanistan and the other South Asia areas?
	What did we do wrong?
	What mistakes were made?
	By whom? And why?
	What consequences or repercussions of pulling out of Afghanistan later this year can we expect?
	Alright, these are big questions and I probably should do more in depth on Afghanistan at another time, but I'm going to answer the questions directly.
	What did we do right in Afghanistan?
	We were right to root out the Taliban.
	These were the, you may almost call them party hosts of 9-11.
	9-11 was cooked up by Bin Laden and al-Zawari.
	Bin Laden originally from Saudi Arabia, al-Zawari from Egypt.
	But all these guys, Saudis, Egyptians, Pakistanis, converged on the Taliban.
	That was their launching base for 9-11.
	So, the United States cannot allow an attack like that to go unanswered.
	I think we were right to go into Afghanistan.
	In some ways, we were right to do what Dick Cheney said, bomb them into the Stone Age.
	But that's when our mistake began.
	And I attribute it to something Colin Powell said.
	I'm not saying that he's the author of the mistake, but he's the author of the sentiment behind the mistake.
	And it's this.
	If we break it, we own it.
	Suddenly, the United States got this wacky idea that if you go into a country and you get rid of some bad guys...
	You now have to sort of take ownership.
	You now have to, you know, let's go over there and let's take a copy of the Declaration of Independence and let's take the Constitution.
	Let's organize elections in Afghanistan.
	Let's start funding road building.
	Why? Why are you doing any of this?
	The simple truth of it is, when you get rid of a really bad guy and a bad regime, the Taliban, some other guys and some rival tribe is going to take over.
	Let them! They're going to be probably better than the Taliban, but that's kind of the best you can do.
	This idea of the United States conducting long-term administration of foreign countries, I mean, it's really a caricature of colonialism.
	The British ruled India, but they actually showed up And they rule the country.
	Brits moved to India.
	The British were in India for 200 years.
	America can't do that.
	Why? Because we're America. We don't do that kind of thing, and yet we try to do it in Afghanistan.
	That was ultimately, I think, the big blunder.
	And so the sad truth is that after the Vietnam War, this is another war America has sort of lost.
	Why? Because the Taliban is going to come back.
	I think that there's a recognition of this.
	Trump recognized it.
	Biden recognizes it.
	So again, we're going to be retreating with our tail between our legs.
	But I think it's better we get out.
	Why? Because the kind of thing we were trying to do was something that we, and especially us, cannot do.
	Cannot do. And in foreign policy, if there's something that you cannot do, you're better off not to do it.
	And if you try to do it and you're doing a bad job of it, at some point you better realize I'm making a horrible mistake over here.
	I better take the boys home.

▲