All Episodes
Previous Next
July 9, 2021 - Dinesh D'Souza
55:23
SEE YOU IN COURT Dinesh D’Souza Podcast Ep 128
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Trump files a massive lawsuit, a class-action lawsuit against the digital media corporations.
What are the merits of that lawsuit?
I'll get into it. And as Michael Avenatti gets ready for prison, I have a couple of tips for him, including when not to pick up the soap.
This is the Dinesh D'Souza Podcast.
America needs this voice.
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.
Trump has filed a massive class action lawsuit against the digital media companies, Twitter specifically and Facebook.
And the fact that it's a class action suit means it's not just on Trump's behalf, it's on behalf of the whole class of people, actually us, who are being restricted, censored, banned, shadow banned, tagged, flagged in various ways by these social media moguls.
Now, Alan Dershowitz, the former Harvard Law School professor, prominent attorney, thinks that this could be a landmark First Amendment case.
Listen. This is the most important First Amendment case of the 21st century, and it's important because it pits freedom of speech on the one hand against the First Amendment on the other hand.
That may sound paradoxical, but remember, it's the high-tech giants that are banning freedom of speech.
They are censoring, but they're claiming the right to do so under the First Amendment.
So they're using the First Amendment as a sword against freedom of speech.
So Dershowitz here, I think, is making a sophisticated point, which is to say that these digital media platforms are rallying behind the First Amendment.
The First Amendment, by the way, which restricts government action, particularly congressional action, against free speech.
And they're saying, we are exercising free speech.
So the paradox here, which I think Dershowitz is highlighting, is that they're invoking the First Amendment to suppress speech.
They're saying it's our platform. Essentially all of Twitter reflects our First Amendment speech, and we can allow or disallow any opinions as we see fit.
And this is really what Trump is setting out to challenge.
Now, here is a lot of people have been snickering at Dershowitz's comment as if it's manifestly absurd.
Here is the Democratic Congressman Ted Lieu.
He goes, tomorrow I'm suing Fox News for not having me on every day and the New York Times for not publishing my op-eds.
And then he concludes that the First Amendment, quote, does not apply to private sector companies.
But I think that this is intellectually a little shoddy for a couple of reasons.
Number one, if you send an op-ed to the New York Times, you don't have a contract with the New York Times.
The New York Times is not obliged to you in any way.
But the truth of it is when you sign up for Twitter or Facebook, you enter into a contract with those companies.
And so you have contractual rights that come out of that.
The second issue is that the digital platforms are in fact collectively and often in coordination regulating America's public square.
So our democratic debate takes place not inside of government.
It's not, you know, government agencies sending memos to each other.
It takes place outside of government but in a public square.
And a handful of digital platforms control that public square.
Think for example of the impact of say Google and controlling even what information is available to you.
They control the search itself.
So, that's not the same as an op-ed to a newspaper or even a single TV cable station.
Now, to recognize the free speech implications of what we're dealing with, think of it this way.
What if the phone company started regulating speech, regulating the speech that was transmitted on the phone?
And when you said, you can't do that, we have a right to say whatever we want, the phone company goes, well, we have a First Amendment right to suppress it.
We're a private company, and so we are exercising our First Amendment rights.
We are not undermining the First Amendment.
We are appealing to the First Amendment on our behalf.
But yet, the effect of it would be to deny the whole swath of Americans access to free speech on the phone.
And imagine if all the private phone companies, and only a handful of them, coordinated with each other, and they all decided to regulate speech in the same way.
Wouldn't that be a free speech problem?
Of course it would. Now, Trump gets into this, and he points out that the digital...
Media companies are suppressing speech not because the speech is pornographic or because it is hate speech.
They're not limited to outlawing epithets.
He says they are, quote, manipulating and controlling the political debate itself.
And he gives three telling examples.
One... The debate about whether coronavirus came from a Chinese lab.
Millions of people were suppressed, censored, because this was supposed to be misinformation, even though it was not misinformation.
Number two, he says that big tech has censored physicians from discussing potential treatments like hydroxychloroquine on the grounds that hydroxychloroquine doesn't work, except that studies have now shown that hydroxychloroquine does work.
It often does work in particular contexts.
It can be ineffective.
And yet, big tech has decided that no discussion of this could be allowed.
And third, the platforms banned the New York Post, America's oldest newspaper, for publishing a story critical of Joe Biden, a story the Biden family did not even contest.
And then Trump goes on to say that even when he was president, this is after the election, big tech banned him, they're banning the social media accounts of a sitting president.
And he could have gone on to say, although he doesn't, but I would say, I would add, that he is now the leader of one of the two major parties in the United States.
And so, essentially, although the big tech platforms say we're trying to foster debate, how do you foster debate while shutting down the leading spokesman of one of the two major parties?
Essentially, what you're doing is creating a one-party state.
Trump goes on to say that these companies aren't really entirely private in the manner that they pretend to be.
He goes, He says the Democrats have come up with a clever scheme.
They've created a kind of bogus fact-checking apparatus.
And on the basis of fact-checking these tweets, they decide this is false.
Even though it's not false, it's only arguable.
You don't agree with it, but that doesn't make it false.
On this pretext, they can censor you.
And he says, in practice, this amounts to suppression of speech.
And second, they talk about how the digital platforms rely frequently on government agencies to tell them what to do.
The FBI says this, therefore we're going to remove everybody else who says that.
The CDC says this, so anyone who says the contrary is going to be banned.
So again, these platforms aren't operating in the private realm.
They don't even have their own criteria to decide what is allowed and what's not.
They're simply taking instructions from the government itself.
So this makes them, says Trump, extensions of the government, or at least working in coordination with the government.
And the key point here is that the First Amendment doesn't just prohibit government from regulating speech, it prohibits government from working with private platforms to do the same thing.
And that is exactly what is going on.
I think for these reasons, this is not a frivolous case.
This is actually a case that raises fundamental issues.
Alan Dershowitz is right.
I expect this is gonna be weaving its way through the courts.
It could be that Trump will lose at the lower court level and then have to push his way up.
And this may well get to the Supreme Court.
But I think without resolving this issue, it's very difficult to say any more that in terms of the ability to speak our minds, America is still a free society.
♪ ♪ Guys, as you know, my friend Mike Lindell has a passion to help everyone, all of us, get the best sleep of our lives.
He didn't just stop by creating the best pillow.
He's also created the new Giza Dream bed sheets.
They look and feel great, which means an even better night's sleep for me, which is crucial for my busy schedule.
Mike found the world's best cotton called Giza.
It is ultra soft and breathable, but also extremely durable.
Now, Mike's Giza sheets come with a 60-day money-back guarantee and a 10-year warranty.
The first night you sleep on these Giza sheets, you're not going to want to sleep on anything else.
Giza Dream Sheets come in a variety of sizes and colors.
Mike is making a special offer just for my listeners.
You will receive two-for-one low price plus free shipping.
Now, go to MyPillow.com and use promo code Dinesh.
By the way, you'll find not just this offer but deep discounts on all MyPillow products, the MyPillow mattress topper, the MyPillow robes, the MyPillow towel sets, and so on.
Call 1-800-876-0227 and use promo code Dinesh.
Again, 1-800-876-0227 or just go to MyPillow.com, but make sure to use promo code D-I-N-E-S-H, Dinesh.
What's Michael Avenatti's prison strategy?
The guy really needs a prison strategy.
You know, over the past several years, we've all become familiar with Avenatti, and he's always outlining a strategy.
He's got his Trump takedown strategy, and then he outlined his Nike shakedown strategy, and then his Oval Office strategy about how he was going to run for president.
And now he needs a prison strategy.
And this prison strategy may involve, when it is safe, to pick up the soap.
Now, this guy Avenatti, I mean, when I first read about this, I was laughing my head off.
And I was laughing my head off on this idea that Avenatti was crying during his sentence.
It's horrible. I'm going to prison.
I thought I was going to send Trump to prison, but actually it ends up being me who's, you know, in handcuffs.
So I was crying too with laughter.
I was crying with amusement.
And then I immediately went to Brian Stelter's feed because Brian Stelter, a.k.a.
my dad, my 35-year-old dad.
Anyway, this guy was talking up Avenatti.
Oh, you're such a celebrity.
You're such a star. Well, Trump was kind of a star, so, you know, I can see a party for you to the White House.
This guy, I mean, Stelter is, you know, as to quote Trump himself, dumb as a rock.
But nevertheless, I thought, let's go to his feed and see what he's saying about Avenatti now.
Nothing. Dead silent.
Not a word.
So this Avenatti was a media celebrity, as you remember.
There he is at the White House Correspondents Dinner in 2018.
He was on the red carpet at the MTV Awards.
He was speculating about dropping into the Democratic primaries.
And even touted as a Democratic presidential candidate.
Why? Because he was seen as the guy who's really giving it to Trump.
And of course he was the lawyer representing Stormy Daniels and accusing Trump of having paid hush money to Daniels.
Now later it turned out that Daniels said that this was sort of Avenatti's idea to file a defamation suit against Trump.
It wasn't her idea. She didn't want to do it.
But he sort of kind of conned her into it, you might say, and then interestingly, he defrauded her.
And what I mean by that is that what happened was he negotiated an $800,000 advance for her memoir called Full Disclosure, and it turned out that he embezzled some of that money, diverting $300,000 of it to his own account.
And this is basically Avenatti's kind of modus operandi.
He's a crook. The case involving Nike, which by the way, frankly, I'm not sorry that he's shaking down Nike.
Big deal. Who cares?
This is a kind of multi-billion dollar corporation.
Let them fight it out, if you will, in civil court.
But essentially what happened was that Avenatti was representing one of the basketball stars that Nike had been dealing with.
And he was essentially saying to Nike, listen, if you don't pay me, I will ruin your image and destroy your market value as a corporation because, hey, I've got a massive social media following.
I'm a celebrity. I can go on TV and bash you guys.
So it was a shakedown operation.
And the Nike lawyers were like, oh, we'll get back to you.
We'll get back to you. And they called the FBI. So this is how this guy ends up in court.
But as you get into it, as the government looked into the Avenatti case, it turns out that this guy is a really bad guy.
And it's not just about Nike.
He represented, for example, a guy, Jeffrey Johnson.
Who is a paraplegic.
And Jeffrey Johnson won a $4 million settlement.
And Avenatti took some of his money.
So Avenatti essentially doesn't just try to shake down companies on the other side.
He rips off his own clients.
This is what makes him really the lowest of the low.
I just want to read a couple of sentences from the government's We're good to go.
A settlement that would require the payment of funds to the client.
Then, he would misrepresent, conceal, and falsely describe to the client the true terms of the settlement and or the disposition of the settlement proceeds.
Next, he would cause the settlement proceeds to be deposited into a bank account that the defendant, Avenatti, controlled.
He would then embezzle and misappropriate settlement proceeds to which he was not entitled.
And finally, he would lull the client to prevent the client from discovering his embezzlement and misappropriation by falsely denying that the settlement proceeds had been paid.
So this guy would be like, this guy has a future in the mafia.
But he's not available right now because he's got two and a half years.
To look over his shoulder when he picks up the soap.
So I couldn't be happier about this.
I mean, there are guys in prison who don't deserve to be there.
There are guys that the government targets.
I think in this case it couldn't be more well-deserved.
And therefore, I offer prison best wishes to Michael Avenatti.
Do you know you could be paying a lot less for your home every month?
This really is a true statement. Why?
Because there are still loan programs with rates in the twos, but they won't be this low forever.
So you've got to take action now.
Call American Financing, America's home for home loans.
Take advantage of a free, no-obligation mortgage review and be one step closer to hundreds, maybe even a thousand dollars in monthly savings.
It really is possible because their expert mortgage consultants look at your entire financial picture, finding every way to help you save.
You could even postpone two mortgage payments.
So, what are you waiting for?
For more information, please call 888-528-1219 or apply online at AmericanFinancing.net.
We seem to have completely lost.
And when I say we, I'm really referring here to the mainstream media.
I'm to the left. Lost our sense of irony or even of self-consciousness.
Kind of funny because people on the left are always talking about their heightened consciousness, the fact that they are woke, that they are sort of now deeply aware of the underlying meanings of what is happening around them.
And yet when it comes to themselves, these people are myopic, they're obtuse, they have no sense of being able to look at something on the outside and then ask, Am I also doing the same thing myself?
Well, I'm thinking about all this because I'm reading a long, just kind of an in-depth article in the New York Times about the Chinese crackdown in Hong Kong.
now. There's a very serious crackdown going on in Hong Kong and it's terrible for the people of Hong Kong. It's remarkable that China is sending this kind of a message to the world, certainly to Taiwan, which is not going to want to be the next Hong Kong. But you begin to see how this is a massive repression in our time. And it doesn't just extend to the people of China, it also extends to anyone who falls
into the, you may say, the claws of the Chinese dragon.
Now here's the New York Times' article.
Armed with the sweeping national security law it imposed, they say that Beijing has now turned Hong Kong into a place, quote, where dissent is immediately smothered.
The very texture of the city's once vibrant daily life is under assault.
Let's go into some of the details of what's going on.
They say, quote, And then you begin to go into the details.
The Chinese government has suppressed a dissident newspaper called Apple Daily, and its leaders have been arrested.
Why? Because, according to China, they are, quote, a threat to, quote, Hong Kong's electoral system.
In other words, Apple Daily is challenging the election system, and as a result, suppress the newspaper, treat them not just as dissidents, but as traitors.
I don't know if anything is beginning to sound familiar so far.
Let's keep going. The New York Times interviews a school teacher in Hong Kong who says that, you know, she used to like to teach multiple perspectives, but now she doesn't feel free to do that.
There's pressure on her to just teach kind of a single point of view, the sort of official point of view, and so she does that.
The Times also interviews a business owner who talks about the fact that he's living in fear.
All businesses are living in fear.
They're living in fear because ultimately the government is imposing its orthodoxy even across the private sector.
There's a little tidbit here about how the national security law obliges financial service providers to inform the authorities about dissidents.
Think, for example, about what's going on in this country with the way the banks are submitting the names of people who are, you know, taking money out to go to Washington, D.C. The airlines are turning information into the national security state.
Oh, this guy was probably in Washington, D.C. around January 6th.
Quote, And it goes on to say that the schools are now supposed to provide reports on what books they offer.
Schools are banned from playing a kind of patriotic Hong Kong anthem that's called Glory to Hong Kong.
Why? Because you're supposed to say Glory to China.
So this is treated as a kind of rival base of loyalty.
And so As I read this, I think to myself, and it goes on, they talk about the definition of subversion, and subversion here is any act that, quote, interferes, disrupts, or undermines the functioning of government.
So think, for example, about all the charges against the January 6th protesters, that they are obstructing an official proceeding.
And they're subversive.
They are launching a coup.
And so, just as the Chinese government, according to this article, can use the elastic language of subversion to go after political dissidents, we see that that is happening right in front of us here in our own country.
But the point I wanted to make at the beginning was the New York Times doesn't see it.
They make no reference to any echoes or similarities.
They don't say that this is in a sense chillingly reminiscent of the world around us.
Why?
Because the New York Times is in the position in America of an ally of the same repression that they're complaining about in China.
The New York Times, in other words, is working in concert with the deep state to do exactly the things that it is complaining about in China.
And think about the implications of that.
I'll go into this in a little more depth in the next segment.
Think about the implications for America's role in the world.
For America, which...
You're doing this and this undermines democracy.
You're doing this and that undercuts free speech.
You're doing this and this subverts free elections.
You're going after political dissidents.
Well, you can't really say those things when you're doing them yourself.
You really can't. And not only are you undermined in saying that, but the other guy knows that you're a hypocrite and a liar.
So what I'm talking about here are the very broad, this goes beyond simply a recognition of irony.
It has to do with what moral standing does the United States have anymore in telling bad actors around the world not to do things that are happening right here, right now, in our own country.
Debbie and I have gotten to know Dr.
Douglas Howard, who founded the company Balance of Nature.
What a remarkable guy. He convinced us we're not eating enough fruits and veggies, even though we thought we were.
Now, you don't need to eat the stuff you don't like.
Turn to the Balance of Nature solution instead.
Can you imagine how you'd feel if you were eating 10 servings of fruits and veggies every single day?
Debbie started first.
I'm now doing it, too.
We take six daily capsules and we're set.
This is what the capsules look like.
The fruit capsules smell like fruit.
And here are the veggie capsules.
They smell like vegetables. They're great.
We get all our vital nutrients sourced from 31 fruits and veggies every day.
And Debbie also swears by this.
The fiber and spice dissolve it either in water or juice and it's ready to go.
Debbie 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.
Does the United States, and particularly the Biden administration, have the moral standing to lecture other countries about violations against human rights when they, the Biden administration, are engaging in precisely those same or similar violations in this country? When China launched its massive crackdown
against political dissidents in Hong Kong, Ned Price, the spokesman of the State Department, had this to say. It's kind of a statement that has to be heard to be believed. He says, we are deeply concerned by Hong Kong authorities' selective use of the national security law to arbitrarily target independent media organizations. He goes, the charges of, quote, collusion, and he
goes on to say, appear to be entirely politically motivated.
He goes on to accuse the Chinese government of going after people for the sole reason that they are political opponents of the regime. Well.
Again, we have no sense of irony here.
Here's a guy who can, with a straight face, say all this at the same time that his own administration is systematically going after political dissidents, has people held, nonviolent people who didn't even break a window, held in solitary confinement for half a year without ever even being tried or convicted of anything.
So the hypocrisy, the doublespeak, the embarrassing lack of any sense of self-consciousness is really what is so telling.
Selective prosecution has been the heart of the Biden administration's crackdown.
And selective prosecution was also a characteristic of what has happened over the past four years, the prosecutions of Roger Stone, of Papadopoulos, of Michael Flynn.
So... This is not a case of a free society getting on its moral high horse and looking down on a repressive society.
The simple truth, and this is, by the way, a point made in a recent article in Revolver magazine, which goes into this in some detail.
They say it, and they put it rather harshly, but I think it's true.
Quote,"...it is simply one empire of censorship and propaganda..." So there's here an attempt to make, and you cannot carry this too far, a moral equivalence between what is going on in the United States and in China.
It was Vladimir Putin who observed when some American press were attacking him.
How are you treating Navalny?
Aren't you going after your political opposition?
Aren't you trying to undermine democracy?
And Vladimir Putin said, well, what about the January 6th protesters?
Didn't they come to protest?
Weren't they unarmed?
Aren't they sitting in jail right now?
Wasn't one of them shot? It's very difficult not to listen to this, even though coming from a political adversary, an international adversary, and an all-around bad guy, but nevertheless go, well, this is actually uncomfortably true, uncomfortably true about what our government is doing.
Very interestingly, the hypocrisy of the American government's attack on China is not a kind of international secret.
It's not just Dinesh pointing it out in his podcast.
The Chinese know it.
Here's the Chinese newspaper.
Talking about it, they make the observation, wait a minute, you're talking to us about censorship?
Didn't digital media in the United States, working in concert with the Biden administration, shut down Trump's account?
Isn't he a political opponent?
Didn't you shut his down?
They go on to say that they even mentioned Parler.
They say that this Apple Daily, which is a newspaper suppressed in China, they go, Apple Daily wasn't as influential as Parler, and yet there was a coordinated attack, again, supported by the Democrats in the Congress, to shut down this platform.
So the Chinese are like, what are you talking about?
They say, quote, Western intervention is pale and weak.
It's hypocritical morality.
This kind of critique, which by the way, the Chinese are kind of used to, has completely lost its moral force.
And then Revolver concludes the article with making, I think, a very tragic point, that not only is this moral authority being lost on the world stage, but it's being lost solely by the actions of the American elite.
They're throwing away America's moral authority.
And this means that at a time when America has become weakened in other ways, we no longer have the kind of economic dominance that we had, for example, in the aftermath of World War II, our military is overstretched and quite frankly, because of bad leadership, we haven't fared very well in recent wars.
I mean, I guess our latest success was the Gulf War, but even in the Gulf War, we didn't get rid of Saddam Hussein, but otherwise, from Vietnam to Afghanistan to Iraq, it's been not exactly a positive record.
And then if you look at American society, its dysfunctional culture, its Hollywood depravity, its drug epidemics, all the racial turmoil in the country, it's really hard to say that America is now a magnet to the world.
Everyone's like, oh, I want that.
I want to live in that culture.
I want to be part of that society.
It's so exciting. Well, no, not anymore.
Not anymore. And at this time, when one of the few things left for America was the moral force of its example, look...
In America, we can speak our minds.
In America, we have freedom of religion.
In America, the government doesn't go after you for the sole reason that you disagree with them.
Even those things are now no longer true.
And so this is a moral authority that hasn't been, quote, lost.
It's one that has been actively and tragically thrown away.
On July 4th, 1776, we declared our independence from taxation from a government an ocean away.
Now today, our government is the one imposing oppressive taxes, while at the same time sending our wealth overseas and driving the value of the dollar into the ground through reckless spending.
This is the time to declare your independence for your savings.
Cut your ties to the U.S. dollar and invest in gold and silver with Birch Gold Group.
Now if you haven't reached out to Birch Gold to diversify part of your IRA or 401k into a precious metals IRA, do it today.
Text Dinesh to 484848 and get a free information kit on protecting your savings with gold.
I buy my gold from Birch Gold.
They have an A plus rating with the Better Business Bureau, countless 5 star reviews, and over 10,000 happy customers.
Talk to them, have them send you, have them help you safeguard your investments.
Text Dinesh to 484848 to claim your free information kit and to speak with a precious metals expert on holding gold and silver in a tax sheltered account.
Again, text Dinesh to 484848 and protect your savings today.
I saw an article in the New York Times right before the finals of the spelling bee.
And interestingly, right on the front page, there was a picture of all the finalists.
Take a look.
Now, kind of interesting, isn't it?
First of all, you see a sea of faces.
And it seems pretty obvious that virtually all of them are immigrants or the children of immigrants.
And specifically, there's a ridiculously large number of people who look like me, which is to say Asian Indians.
Now, interestingly, Asian Indians have dominated the spelling bee here in the United States for the last 25 years, since...
About 1998, Indians win just about every year.
It's almost an embarrassment because there's such a small percentage of Indians in the country.
But this year, as it turns out, it just came out, that the winner was African American.
And there's a huge hoopla of publicity.
And it's almost creepy because the excitement on the part of the media that a 13-year-old girl, Zahila Avant-Garde of Louisiana...
That she won almost reflects a certain type of racism.
It's kind of like, a black kid won?
We can't believe it! They're just so beside themselves.
It's almost as if we're watching an Olympic race.
And, you know, it's a very familiar sight.
There are like, you know, 17 blacks in the finals and then like one puny Indian guy.
And the Indian guy wins.
Everyone's like, what? The Indian guy beat them, what?
So this sense of shock that a black girl kind of whooped the Indians is the dominating tone of the coverage.
But... Question I want to get out that's really interesting is, why is it the case that you've got this kind of Asian-Indian dominance of the spelling bee?
This is the big question.
It's not the issue of the exception.
It's the issue of the rule.
And here's an article in CNN almost preparing for...
A very similar result as earlier years ago, what a more equal spelling bee can do for kids.
And this is, again, kind of inspired by all the rhetorical bombast of critical race theory, written, by the way, by Shalini Shankar, a professor of anthropology and Asian-American studies at Northwestern.
I'm just going to read a couple of sentences because you'll get the picture right away.
Quote, And a little further on, was intentionally exclusionary.
So basically what you're getting here is it's almost like a liberal professor goes, well, listen, we've got to kind of prepare for another Asian Indian to win and for the blacks and Hispanics to come out of the back.
So let's give a preemptive explanation of why essentially the spelling bee itself is racist.
Now... The truth of it is a spelling bee is not racist.
And in fact, it's harder for people from other countries to win because they often come here not knowing the language.
That's not true, by the way, of the Asian Indians.
Most of them do know the language.
So is it genes or is it culture?
Well... I think that the one thing we have to remember is part of what drives all this is the selectivity of the immigration process.
When people come to this country, they're not typical of the people in their own countries.
They're typically, they're generally smarter, they're more hardworking, they're more entrepreneurial, and so obviously their children are going to be that way too and are also going to be raised that way.
So that's one factor that's driving this.
And the second is culture.
A Stanford An anthropologist named Dornbush several years ago did a study in which he compared the study habits of whites, blacks, Hispanics, and Asian Americans, and here's what he found.
On average, the Asian American students spend 12 to 14 hours a week in study outside of school.
For black kids, it was about eight hours.
For Hispanic and black kids, it averaged two to four hours.
Well, Wait a minute.
Right there you see the reason for why some groups are doing better than others.
It's not because the curriculum is racist.
It's not because math is linear.
It's not because spelling is exclusionary and part of a settler colonial project.
It's because, by and large, you've got one group, the Asian Americans, that have close or intact families.
And even though they have socioeconomic deprivation, they encourage their kids and they make their kids.
Study harder, work harder, and then success in school and in the spelling bee is the inevitable result.
I've talked a lot about Mike's legendary MyPillows.
I've talked a lot about his Giza Dream Sheets.
But now Mike has done it again by introducing his new MySlippers.
Mike has taken over two years to develop these slippers.
They're designed to wear indoor or outdoor all day long, made with MyPillow foam and impact gel to help prevent fatigue.
They're made with this amazing quality leather suede.
And for a limited time, Mike is offering four MySlippers are so comfortable.
You're going to want to get some for the whole family. Code Dinesh.
We keep hearing about the Hunter Biden story.
Now, we don't hear about the Hunter Biden story very much in the mainstream media.
They're suppressing it. But they're suppressing it because they know that the Hunter Biden story is the Joe Biden story.
There is more and more evidence coming out from the Hunter Biden laptop.
Now, some of this is being reported in the Daily Mail.
This is by the way out of the UK, but also by the New York Post here in America.
Two of the almost solitary outlets that are talking about this.
They're going through the laptop, which is vital evidence.
And they find out that, you know, here is Joe Biden.
I never got involved in my son's business dealings.
Now this is proving to be a spectacular lie, because on multiple occasions, Joe Biden and Hunter Biden are together.
Most recently, I find out from the laptop, as reported in the Daily Mail, that Joe Biden entertained his son's business associates from Mexico.
This is the Mexican billionaire's Carlos Slim, but also Miguel Hernan Velasco.
Where? On Air Force Two, and in Mexico City, but also at the office of the vice president.
This was when Biden was vice president.
And this is all at a time when Hunter Biden and his business partner Jeff Cooper are planning massive investments with those billionaires in Mexico.
An investment deal that Hunter, Hunter's partner, calls, quote, a flippin' gigantic business deal.
So there's a lot of money to be made, and Joe is a big part of it.
In fact, it looks like Joe Biden was secretly meeting with these guys even before that.
And the reason is that Hunter Biden on his laptop is writing the White House photographer.
This is going back now to 2015, basically saying he wants the photos of Joe Biden with these members of the Aleman family.
In other words, one of these two billionaires.
So evidently that guy was in the White House on another occasion, and Hunter is trying to track down the photos.
Now, to get an idea of how all this stuff kind of comes together in a very sordid way, I just want to take a single look at a single snapshot of Hunter's life and the way it intermingles with Joe Biden's life.
This is May 2018, and Hunter Biden is staying at a Los Angeles hotel called the Chateau Marmont.
And what he does is he goes through his escort sites on his phone and he orders a Russian escort named Yana, who describes herself as an elite courtesan.
And Hunter Biden says, Hi, my name is Rob, I'm staying at Chateau Marmont, are you available right now?
So apparently the escort goes over, they smoke crack, drink vodka, have sex, make porn together.
Hunter, by the way, saves all the porn on his laptop.
And then the woman comes back the next day, kind of the same deal, and then she wants to be paid.
But the problem is that Hunter's credit cards aren't working.
So she goes, I'm not leaving without my $8,000.
That was apparently what he had agreed to pay.
So what happens is Hunter now pulls out his credit cards and he basically hands them over to Yana for her to try.
Very interesting. So she tries and apparently at the end one of the charges goes through.
Now, the funny thing is the woman leaves.
Hunter falls asleep. When he wakes up, he realizes that he's getting all these fraud notices.
And it turns out all his multiple tries where he tried to send money all went through.
So apparently $25,000 has left his account.
On, evidently, the same attempt to pay the same charge.
So, naturally, Hunter Biden is very upset, but this Yana woman then replies and says, Hey, listen, you know, I got all this money in my account, but don't worry, you can have it back.
But now is where the plot thickens, because before she can send it back, a Secret Service agent appears on the scene and tells Hunter Biden...
I'm now reading from his message to Hunter Biden, also recorded on the laptop.
H, Hunter, I'm in the lobby.
Come down. Thanks, Rob.
Rob is the Secret Service agent.
His name is Robert Savage.
He was the head of the Los Angeles field office.
And Hunter replies, five minutes.
But Hunter doesn't come down.
And Savage texts again to Hunter Biden.
He goes, come on H, this is linked to Celtic's account.
Celtic? Celtic, it turns out, is Joe Biden's Secret Service name.
You know how presidents and vice presidents have code names.
So basically what the Secret Service agent is saying, all this money coming out of your account is coming out of Joe Biden's account.
So we have to deal with this now.
And the Secret Service agent says, call the front desk now, H, or I will have to assume you are in danger and we will have to make them give us the keys.
No reply from Hunter.
Now, a little bit later, Hunter, this is, by the way, I'm getting now this from Hunter's book called Beautiful Things.
He talks about the fact that because of his crack cocaine habits, he gets blacklisted at the Chateau Marmont.
He shows up in 2018 at this Sunset Boulevard hotel.
He tries to check in.
And the guy goes, you can check in.
So this is Hunter now sending indignant texts.
He goes, WTF? What the?
He goes, seriously? A note in the system that says under no circumstances am I allowed in the building without pre-approval?
WTF, man! And the guy goes, this guy named Mike goes, apparently you were banned for drug use, is what I was told.
And Hunter goes, drug use?
You've got to be effing kidding me.
I was banned for drug use at Chateau Marmont?
You have to be effing me.
Well, that's an effing first in the hotel's history, I guess.
Should I take it as a badge of honor?
I really mean it. This literally must be a first at the Chateau.
So what we see here is not just the sordid life of Hunter Biden, but the way in which it's interconnected with Joe Biden's life.
On other occasions on the laptop, Hunter is literally paying Joe Biden's bills.
A thousand dollars here, a couple of thousand dollars there.
And what's happening here, you see, is that the foreign money comes into Hunter.
So Hunter has, in some ways, got to return it to Joe.
And one way he does that is by paying Biden bills.
Now, interestingly, if you read the New York Times, you get no indication of any of this.
All of this is being completely suppressed in the national media.
But there it is in little nuggets in the New York Post and the Daily Mail.
And if you put it together, well, that's kind of my job on the podcast, to put it all together so that you realize that at the end of the day, you've got this disgusting crackhead Hunter Biden.
But everything he does, including his use of the N-word, he learned from his sly, corrupt, possibly now senile, but nevertheless, just as crooked as Hillary, father, Joe Biden.
It's time for our question of the day.
Hi, Dinesh. We're big fans of your podcast.
We always enjoy watching.
It's very informative, and we enjoy all the segments about Christianity as well.
And in that light, I wanted to ask a question.
I have a son who's a young adult and who is still trying to figure out kind of what he believes.
We're a Christian family.
You know, we've gone to church. You know, I've taught him about God and so forth.
But, you know, I understand as a young adult you have questions and you want to And as a parent, sometimes I don't always know how to answer these questions.
One question that's come up lately is about the Big Bang Theory.
And I find science interesting as well, which is another reason why I enjoy your segments on the Bible and how it correlates with science.
What is your view of the Big Bang Theory, and do you feel that it correlates with what is taught in Genesis?
Do you feel that those two can be compatible, or do you believe that it contradicts what's taught in God's Word?
I'm very interested to hear your response, and thank you again for all of your hard work, and you and Debbie keep up the great work.
Thank you. I appreciate the question.
I would recommend to your son my book, What's So Great About Christianity, which is very much in the spirit of answering questions and dealing with issues and not trying to shut the door on them or even just say, hey, listen, God said it, that settles it, but rather in an open-minded way to engage the kind of questions, not just young people, but even a lot of adults.
Now, I want to talk about the twofold significance of the Big Bang, and I'm going to do it somewhat in depth, a little bit more than I normally do in answering a question.
The Big Bang, in my view, vindicates the biblical account of creation, which is what?
Which is, in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.
Now, this is a kind of startling statement that comes from the biblical writers.
And the biblical writers, let's note, aren't doing any scientific experiments.
They're basically saying, God told me.
God told me that this is how it was.
And that God created the universe out of nothing.
Out of nothing. Ex nihilo, as the Greeks like to say.
Now, interestingly, there are many other kind of creation stories that talk about a sort of divine craftsman who made the universe.
But pretty much in all of them, the stories that go back to the...
Babylonians and so on.
You have this idea that God takes some pre-existing stuff and fashions the universe.
God is sort of like a carpenter or a craftsman.
But that stuff is there already.
But the Jews and the Christians don't take that view.
You find in the Bible the view that there is nothing.
First there is nothing. And then there is a universe.
And for the Greeks, this was really impossible.
Why? Because out of nothing, you get nothing.
The Greeks couldn't understand philosophically how you could get something out of nothing.
This is a kind of impossibility.
Aristotle believed that the universe was eternal.
It always existed.
Therefore, you don't really need an explanation of how the universe came into being.
Why? Because there's always been a universe.
And Aristotle's argument for this is kind of sophisticated.
It's sort of philosophical.
It's that when you think about things like space and time, it's really hard to assign to them a fixed point.
Let's talk about time for a moment.
If somebody says, think about a moment in time as far back as you can go, 30 million years ago.
Well, 30 million years ago, there was time.
But what about the day before that?
And what about the day before that?
40 million years ago.
Well, before that, there was 41 million years ago.
So no matter how far you go back, you can always add a day, add a year, and keep going further back.
So this was kind of Aristotle's point.
How could time possibly have had a beginning?
And if it did, how did it come into existence out of no time, you may say?
So, this view, which not only seems philosophical, and it is, was endorsed until just about 75 years ago by the mainstream of modern Western science.
In other words, modern Western science also believed...
That the universe was eternal.
This was considered, given the name of the so-called steady state theory about the universe, that the universe was somehow in a sort of adjusted equilibrium, a so-called steady state from, you may say, time immemorial, forever stretching back.
Now, interestingly, Einstein's theory is of relativity.
Which were published at the beginning of the 20th century, predict an expanding universe and also predict a universe with a beginning.
But Einstein himself not only didn't see that, but he was reluctant to believe it.
Now, a Russian astronomer named Alexander Friedman noticed that when he was reviewing Einstein's math, Einstein had made a kind of schoolboy error that had caused his equations not to predict a beginning for the universe.
And Friedman goes, he writes Einstein, and he goes, you know, her doctor Einstein, I think you got it wrong.
And Einstein at first is kind of indignant, but then Einstein is forced to admit that he made an error.
But even after he admits he made an error, Einstein is reluctant to To say that the universe had a beginning.
In fact, Einstein goes, quote, the notion of a beginning is repugnant to me.
The expanding universe is preposterous, incredible.
And other scientists took the same view.
When people suggested the Big Bang at the very beginning, here's Philip Morrison of MIT. I find it very hard to accept the Big Bang theory.
I would like to reject it.
Here's another prominent scientist, Alan Sandage of the Carnegie Observatory, quote, It is such a strange conclusion.
It cannot really be true.
Now, if you think about it, very odd way for scientists to talk.
They're talking not just about what is the case, but what they don't want to be the case.
And an astronomy professor of mine, Robert Jastrow, By the way, this is Robert Jastrow's book, a very interesting book I recommend to you, called God and the Astronomers.
Jastrow, world-class scientist, now dead, but he was the head of the Mount Wilson Observatory.
And Jastrow makes the point that scientists like to think that there is a natural explanation for everything.
And the reason he says that they are allergic, opposed to the idea of a Big Bang, is because at some point, There's a big bang and everything starts.
So Jastrow says, and this is the beautiful way he ends his book, think about what I said earlier about the fact that the biblical writers did no scientific experiments.
They just said God told us.
And Jastrow goes, whoa, it turns out they were right.
I'm not quoting him. For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream.
He has scaled the mountains of ignorance, he is about to conquer the highest peak, and as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.
So, what Jastrow is saying is that modern science, the science of the Big Bang, has vindicated the astounding statement on the first page of the Bible that there was nothing and then there was a universe.
There's a second implication I want to touch on only briefly, and that is that the Big Bang also vindicates the Christian view of time.
In fact, it makes sense of the Christian concept of eternity.
What does eternity mean?
In the Christian view, eternity doesn't mean that God exists forever in time.
It means that in some sense, God is outside of time, and not just God.
Heaven is outside of time.
There's no, quote, time in heaven.
Heaven, like God, is eternal.
Now, Until very recently, and in fact, until the Big Mag, nobody could make any sense of any of this.
Going back to the 4th century AD, someone once wrote, one of the monks wrote a letter to the church father, Augustine, and he asked, what was God doing prior to the time that he made the universe?
And the monk's question is kind of a funny question, sort of like, hey, listen, before the universe, God had a lot of time on his hands.
How did he occupy his time prior to creating the universe?
And Augustine, reflecting on the first book of Genesis, gave a kind of amazing answer.
Augustine said to this monk, No, no, no.
God made time along with the universe.
In other words, before the universe, we put the word before in quote marks, there was no time.
Once upon a time, time did not exist.
So, now...
The Big Bang has stunningly confirmed the wisdom of Augustine's insight.
I mean, think about the way these philosophical insights from thousands of years ago are completely verified by modern science.
How? Because the point of the Big Bang isn't just that the universe started with a bang 14 million years ago.
It's that 14 billion years ago, what came into being was It was not just all the matter in the universe, but also space and time.
So the remarkable implication is that space and time are properties of our universe.
Beyond our universe, no space, no time.
And what that means is that the concept of an eternal God existing outside or beyond time, having created the universe not just in time, but having created time itself I mean,
think of how exciting it is to be a Christian and look at these ancient texts and see that these texts, which for many centuries were very difficult to make sense of in rational terms, are now stunningly vindicated by the most exhilarating and the most important findings of modern physics and astronomy.
▲
Export Selection