All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 4, 2021 - Dinesh D'Souza
53:58
2A ON TRIAL Dinesh D’Souza Podcast Ep211
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
The Supreme Court just heard a major case on gun rights and appears to be locked and loaded to affirm the Second Amendment.
Underlying the issue of critical race theory is a doctrine of black supremacy, a doctrine that mirrors the old racist doctrine of white supremacy.
I'm going to take a look today, first look, at Kyle Rittenhouse's claim of self-defense.
Is it valid? And former Texas State Senator Don Huffines joins me.
We're going to talk about what Texas needs to do to become an exemplary red state.
this 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.
The Supreme Court just heard a major case on gun rights, a case coming out of New York.
It's New York State Rifle and Pistol Association versus Bruin.
And the case looks to be an opportunity for the court, and now a 6-3 court, to wringingly affirm the Second Amendment.
Now, the Second Amendment has been under assault, kind of in all the blue states, but particularly up in the Northeast, New York and up in New England, and also California.
And what these states have done is they've basically taken a line from the Supreme Court's earlier Heller decision to say, a line that said in effect that the Second Amendment is, quote, not absolute, and essentially gone to town over that.
They've been passing all kinds of restrictions.
And now they know that the court is more conservative.
So, in fact, there was a New York case in which New York passed a restriction.
It was making its way to the Supreme Court.
It was likely to be struck down.
And New York realized, listen, why don't we pull the law so the Supreme Court doesn't have the opportunity to slap us down?
But here what happens is New York has a law that essentially says that if you want to carry a gun...
Conceal carry. There's no open carry, so it has to be concealed carry.
You have to show special circumstances.
You have to show why you, in particular, have, quote, good cause to carry a gun.
You've got to essentially plead with a judge.
And the... The plaintiff in this case, a guy named Robert Nash, he's a gun owner.
He went to the Rensselaer County New York judge, and the judge went no.
Now, let's remember that these New York and California judges routinely deny applications for gun permits.
And it doesn't matter... If your circumstances seem you need protection, you've received death threats, they just go, no, we don't think that justifies.
We don't think that meets the standard.
And so this kind of rejection of these gun permits is just routine in these states.
So in effect, the Second Amendment is nullified.
You can technically own a gun, but you can't take it anywhere.
So it doesn't offer you any, you may say, protection outside your home.
Now, this case has made its way to the Supreme Court.
Now, what I find interesting is that, to me, the heroine of this debate is sort of Amy Coney Barrett.
And I want to tell you why.
Because it's kind of funny, isn't it?
You have this kind of mild-mannered woman from the Midwest, and she turns out to be the most full-throated defender of gun rights.
But I think she's going to carry, really, all the conservatives, including John Roberts, Now, initially, New York basically made the argument before the court saying, in effect, that there's a lot of gun violence.
We need to restrict guns because there's just a lot of gun violence going on out there.
And New York invoked all kinds of scary specters.
Do you want to have people carrying guns in a subway?
They get into an argument, and what, gunfire breaks out?
Justice Breyer, speaking for the left wing of the court, invoked the example of a law-abiding guy who takes his gun to a ballgame.
And then he gets a little drunk, and he gets into a fight over a call or over some other issue, and what, gunfire breaks out at the ballgame?
So this was the left basically making, you may say, prudential arguments for gun regulation.
And interestingly, the conservatives on the court began to fight back with prudential arguments of their own.
If you go to a restaurant and there's some crazy guy who begins to brandish a gun, wouldn't that person be deterred if there were law-abiding guys carrying guns who were there to stop him?
Wouldn't that guy be less likely to want to open fire knowing that there might be armed customers sitting in the restaurant?
And of course, there were many familiar examples of Alito says, you know, let's talk about somebody who cleans an office at night or somebody who's a doorman in an apartment or a nurse or an orderly who washes dishes and is scared to death to go home.
Basically, Alito says, wouldn't that person have every reason to want to have a gun and why would you want to deny to them the right to defend themselves when the cops are not on the scene?
New York tried to draw a distinction between, you know, urban areas which are different than rural areas, and Justice Roberts came back and said, no, listen, it's urban areas where you have things like muggings.
It's urban areas where you get dragged into an alley.
I'm not quoting Roberts. How many muggings take place in the forest?
So the point here is that Roberts is basically saying that people across the country, not just in the countryside, but also in the cities, have a right to self-defense.
But I think it was Amy Coney Barrett who sort of stole the show because she zoomed into the core language of the law, which calls for special circumstances and, quote, good cause to carry a gun.
So New York was basically saying, well, yeah, you know, you do have a Second Amendment right to have a gun, but you need to show cause.
And Amy Coney Barrett said, wait a minute.
With what rights, with which of our other rights, do we have to sort of show cause or make a special case that we should be able to exercise them?
I have a First Amendment right to speak.
Do I have to show cause for why I can speak?
No. I have a right to free assembly.
Do I have to show cause for why me and my friends are meeting at a certain place or time?
No. So the point here is that the presumption is in favor of the right. You don't have to show cause. In fact, it's the opposite. New York needs to show cause for why they want to abridge a fundamental constitutional right. Let's remember that just because the Second Amendment is second and let's say religious freedom is first or free speech is first, it doesn't mean that the Second Amendment is less important than the First Amendment. It's just as important. So I think
here the court was on the balance very skeptical of New York's attempt.
And the beauty of them is that they strike down the New York law.
They'll be striking down the California law and the Rhode Island law and the Maine law.
So, there will be a collapse of left-wing attempts to essentially push away the gun right, the Second Amendment right.
We need a resounding affirmation of this neglected right, and it looks like the Supreme Court right now are the ones to do it.
Guys, you and I together, we have helped build MyPillow into the amazing company that it is today.
And Mike Lindell is grateful.
He has an amazing offer for my listeners on his Standard MyPillows.
Now you will receive a Standard MyPillow regularly, $69.98 for now, just $19.98.
Now these wonderful 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. The pillows come with a 10-year warranty so that you know they're going to last and a 60-day money-back guarantee so you know you have nothing to lose.
It's time to start getting the quality sleep that we not only want but need.
If you go to the MyPillow website, you'll get deep discounts on all the MyPillow products, the MyPillow towels, the mattress topper, the robes, the MySlippers, and so much more.
Great time to do some Christmas shopping.
Go to MyPillow.com.
Use promo code Dinesh to get Mike's standard MyPillow for just $19.98.
Or call 800-876-0227.
That's 800-876-0227.
Or go to MyPillow.com.
Be sure to use promo code D-I-N-E-S-H Dinesh.
The left is absolutely berserk.
They're smarting over the results of the election.
Even though the New Jersey election went narrowly for the incumbent, for Brown, the Democrat, it was by a razor-thin margin in a heavily blue state.
And of course, in Virginia, very good news, and that is that McAuliffe went down to defeat And Youngkin will be the new governor.
So this is just sinking in, and you can see the left throwing hysterics about it, particularly about the dimension of critical race theory, which was a critical issue in the election.
Now, take a look at this.
Here's a clip of Joy Reid going bananas over what she sees as the message of Virginia.
Listen. But...
So the Republicans are really dangerous.
And why are they so dangerous?
Well, Joy Reid goes on to say they're dangerous because, you know, first it starts out that they're bashing critical race theory.
Second, they're embracing, you know, Trumpism across the board.
Pretty soon they're mounting a January 6th-style insurrection and you keep them going and there's going to be like a full-blown...
Domestic terrorist assault on the United States itself coming from across the country from the, you may say, MAGAized Republican Party.
So this is the kind of crazy paranoia that you're beginning to see from the left.
And it's all because we're challenging.
And by we here, I mean parents.
I mean, a multiracial coalition turned out in Virginia to spike CRT. Here is Jamil Hill, the left-wing activist, also kind of a sports journalist.
And she goes, she refers to Virginia as, quote,"...the country simply loves white supremacy." In fact, she turns her venom against white women, which just seems to be a particular target for her.
She goes, white women reporting for duty.
As if the white women make common cause with blacks, but then when it really comes, push comes to shove, the white women all join the white men because racism is more powerful than feminism.
Now, what makes all of this deranged, of course, is that Jamil Hill, sort of like Joy Reid, they're all pretending like there has been no fundamental change in America from the old days, that America remains a deeply racist society.
We need critical race theory to expose all that and to fight that.
But think about it. If this were America circa, let's say, 1880 or 1920, what do you think Jameel Hill would be doing?
I mean, do you think that she'd be like a commentator on ESPN? Do you think that she'd be a decorated activist?
Do you think that she would be this kind of public figure earning hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars a year?
No. If Jameel Hill lived in 1880 or 1920, she would be a maid.
She'd be a domestic servant, but she'd be a farm laborer.
That was the plight of blacks in the United States at that time.
So not to recognize that we're living in a different America, I think is completely delusional.
But... For me, the deeper question about critical race theory is how is it that you've got a theory that somehow has come to mirror white supremacy?
How is it that you have all the sort of doctrines of white supremacy embedded in a theory that claims to be fighting white supremacy?
Let me talk a little bit about white supremacy for a second.
I'm going to read a couple of lines from a very famous speech that was delivered by Alexander Stevens, the vice president of the Confederacy.
It's called the Cornerstone Speech.
And he's attacking Abraham Lincoln, and he's attacking the Declaration of Independence.
And what he says, speaking of the Confederacy, is, quote, he talks about how America is founded on the idea of the Declaration of Independence.
And he says...
Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea, meaning opposite to the idea of equality.
Its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests upon the great truth that the Negro is not the equal to the white man.
Now, let's pause on this phrase alone, because what you see here is that although Alexander Stevens is defending the Confederacy and its sort of practice of slavery, slavery is not the key issue here.
Racism is. And in fact, racism, not slavery, is the cornerstone.
Racism is the foundation on which other institutions like slavery are then erected.
So, Basically, what Alexander Stevens is defending is he's defending certain key principles.
Let's look at what those principles are.
First, it's the idea that race is important, that race matters, that you are defined by your race.
Number two, he's defending the idea that there are superior and inferior races.
The white race is superior, the black race is inferior.
He's also defending the idea that you should discriminate on the basis of race, discriminate not just de facto, but de jure, meaning as a matter of law.
And now I note that if you simply take the word white and substitute the word black, you get all the principles of CRT right there.
In other words, what are the principles of CRT? Critical race theory.
Number one, race matters.
You're defined by your race.
Number two, there are superior and inferior races.
And you can't get out of that.
So right now, it's the opposite.
The white race is inferior.
Whites are, in a sense, the bad guys.
They are saddled with guilt.
They can't get out of it. It's essentially inborn.
And then discrimination, both de facto and de jure.
Look at the way in which discrimination now in favor of minorities and against whites, also against Asians, is now embedded in our laws and practices.
In a way, what you have here is a kind of weird upside-down society in which the same principles are intact, but simply the names are changed.
And I want to look at why that is the case.
How did it become like that?
Well, here's how. First of all, it's worth noting that it's the same party, the Democrats, that was the party of the old racism and the new.
My point is CRT is a new form of racism.
And here is the kind of basic logic of it.
You know, let me ask a simple question.
What is the opposite of slavery?
You might say, emancipation.
But there's another answer that you could give.
The opposite of slavery, meaning the enslavement of blacks for 300 years, is to enslave whites for 300 years.
One could argue that that is the true mirror image, and in fact, that's the true way to achieve justice.
Let me ask a different question.
What's the opposite of racism?
You might say colorblindness, but that's only one way to think about it.
Here's another way to think about it.
The opposite of racism is racism in the other direction.
So if someone has been discriminating against you, you now turn around and discriminate against them.
I think this is the logic of CRT. Basically, the critical race theory guys go, listen, it's not enough to go from slavery to emancipation.
We've got to sort of enslave the other guys to the degree we can.
And since that's too much in the remote past, let's focus on racism.
They have discriminated against us.
And they, of course, here are meaning the ancestors.
So it's now our turn for decades, if not centuries, to discriminate against them and to have that discrimination embedded in law.
So... All the old bad things—discrimination, segregation—are now part of our laws, and they are brought to us courtesy of a Democratic Party that never abandoned its old racism but merely figured out a kind of politically beneficial way to change its direction.
Here's some pretty monumental news.
It was recently announced that Social Security benefits are going to increase by 5.9% in January.
Now, that's the highest increase in 40 years, and what does it mean?
It's the government admitting that inflation is out of control, and yet the left is still trying to push We're good to go.
Here's an added incentive to do it this month.
When you text Dinesh to 484848 and purchase precious metals with Birch Gold by December 23rd, you're going to get free silver for every $5,000 you invest.
Birch Gold has an A-plus rating with the Better Business Bureau, countless five-star reviews, thousands of happy customers.
Text Dinesh to 484848 and get free silver for every $5,000 you invest.
The offer ends December 23rd.
Once again, text Dinesh to 484848 and protect your savings today.
I want to talk about the Kyle Rittenhouse case, which is underway.
And it may be a wrong thing to say that I'm sort of enjoying the case.
I mean, a man is on trial for his life.
There are murder charges involved.
But this is turning out to be a case where the prosecutor has sort of lost his marbles.
He is saying ridiculous things, one on top of the other.
And the judge is constantly having to chasten him.
Now, the judges, apparently, one-sided slapdowns of the prosecutor, this guy named Binger, have produced the ire of the left on social media and in the media.
On CNN, for example, there was sort of kind of grumpy objections to the judge, as if to say the judge sort of doesn't know the law, the judge is sort of making arbitrary decisions, the judge is sort of revealing a kind of bias in favor of Rittenhouse.
And here's a little clip.
Of the judge responding, interestingly enough, not just to the situation in the courtroom, but directly to CNN. Listen.
So there's two different parts of the rule.
One of them is the defendant has to have been aware of the decedent's violent acts or turbulent behavior.
In the other one, it's circumstantial evidence of the victim's violent behavior.
At the time of the incident.
That's what I admitted to Don.
Now one of these, this was on CNN, Jeffrey Toobin and another attorney there, and the comment was made that the ruling was incomprehensible.
And I think they obviously are not familiar with this rule.
That's our law. Yeah, I think the judge knows the law a little bit better than these sort of CNN pundits, this kind of tubing crew sitting in on the panel at CNN. The judge doesn't know what he's talking about.
Let me set the context for this.
This is about the judge basically saying that the defense in the case can refer to the guys who were shot by Rittenhouse as looters.
Why? Because they're looting.
That's the circumstantial evidence.
They're observed running out of stores, taking stuff.
They can refer to them as rioters.
Why? Because they're rioting.
They can be described as arsonists.
Why? Because they are observed setting things on fire.
So, the judge's point is that this circumstantial evidence, circumstantial here just means arising out of the circumstances, can in fact be introduced in court, and that is the law.
Now, This prosecutor, I want to read, because you want to get an idea of what the judge is responding to.
And he's responding to a prosecutor who acts like looting, rioting, arson is really no big deal.
So at one point, for example, he talks about Rittenhouse.
This is the prosecutor, Binger.
He goes, he's running around and trying to stop people from doing things because he thinks they're illegal.
Maybe they are, maybe they're not.
So, The prosecutor's acting like, you know, we really don't know if these guys were doing anything illegal.
True, they are basically using force, using violence.
They are brandishing guns.
They're setting things on fire.
But maybe that's illegal.
Maybe it's not. Why is Kyle Rittenhouse?
The point is, why does Kyle Rittenhouse even care?
In fact, the binger even says, quote, that's not his job.
He's 17. And I love this phrase, maybe it's illegal, maybe it's not, because essentially what the prosecutor is saying is that because we, i.e.
the authorities, have decided to let the rioters go and basically do their thing, we haven't produced the police.
In fact, at one point, Trump even offered National Guard and the Minneapolis...
I don't want it.
I don't want it.
But the judge was having none of it.
At one point, Binger, the prosecutor, even attacked or vilified Rittenhouse for calling 911.
This was actually on the day before Rittenhouse thought he saw a crime.
He called 911. And now I'm quoting Binger.
He doesn't know what's going on.
He doesn't know what these people are doing.
He doesn't talk to anybody.
No one asks him to call 911.
He thinks he sees a crime.
So Binger's point here is, why is he calling 911?
He Even though that's what you're supposed to do when you think you see a crime.
You think you see something going on, you call 911.
But according to Binger, this guy should be minding his own business.
This didn't involve him. He didn't have a full understanding.
He didn't conduct any investigation.
Now... Very interestingly, there's been a videotape that's come out.
It was actually released by Human Events.
Jack Posobiec's been talking about it on his feed.
And the videotape is, I think, pretty crushing.
Why? Because of what it shows.
Now, I'm not going to play the videotape.
In fact, this kind of videotape is almost like out of bounds for me to play on the podcast because it's described as violent.
And so I'm not going to play the videotape.
By the way, speaking of things that I sort of can't cover on the podcast, I'm going to be doing this evening a Q&A on Locals.
And Locals is kind of my place where I sound off on topics that are taboo, on topics that will get me thrown off of YouTube, will get me sort of taken down on Facebook.
And I'm going to be talking specifically about the election.
So I know there's a lot of questions swirling around the election and the Virginia election, the New Jersey election, there were a bunch of other elections also. So I'll be delving into that some more. It's 730 Eastern, Dinesh.locals.com.
So back to the video on Rittenhouse.
And in the video, you can kind of zoom in.
And there's even an aerial video.
And basically what you see is that this guy, obviously unstable guy named Joseph Rosenbaum, he's chasing Rittenhouse.
Rittenhouse is running away.
Then Rittenhouse hears shots fired.
Rittenhouse turns around and he sees Rosenbaum lunging toward him and toward his gun.
Rittenhouse draws his gun and shoots and kills Rosenbaum.
Then Rittenhouse tries to run some more, and several other people begin to attack him.
Rittenhouse trips and falls to the ground.
Anthony Huber tries to hit Rittenhouse with a skateboard and tries to grab his rifle.
Rittenhouse turns around and shoots Huber.
And then a third guy, Gage Grosskreutz, lunges for Rittenhouse, and Grosskreutz is holding a gun in his hand.
And then Rittenhouse turns around and shoots him, wounding, but not killing him.
Now, the simple fact from the videotape, it couldn't be more clear, is all these three guys attacked Rittenhouse and attacked him first.
So Rittenhouse's force, both the lethal force and the non-lethal force, were in response to being attacked.
It would seem that this on the face of it would qualify as self-defense.
I'm sure there's a lot more texture, a lot more detail, a lot more complexity.
But at the end of the day, it seems pretty obvious.
And I'm going to give you a little bit of the dialogue.
Here are the writers. Well, here's Rittenhouse from the videotape.
Anybody need medical?
Writers. Let's get him.
Let's get him. Rittenhouse.
Friendly, friendly, friendly.
He's trying to say, listen, I'm not out to cause trouble.
And then writers, you won't do S-H-I-T. And then obscenities.
And at this point, Rittenhouse gets attacked.
At this point, he draws his rifle.
At this point, he fires the shots that kill Joseph Rosenbaum.
So although the left is threatening, this guy better not walk, this guy better not walk, or else, I think justice demands, at least from what we know so far and from what the video tape shows, that this guy should walk.
You wanna do something that really smart this month?
I'm gonna give you a life hack to cut your cell phone bill in half, Pure Talk.
Pure Talk gives you killer 5G coverage in one of the largest 5G networks in the country.
It saves the average family over $800 a year.
I made the switch, the coverage is great, the US-based customer service actually cares about you, and Pure Talk's prices are pretty much wholesale.
Unlimited talk, text, and six gigs of data for just $30 a month.
You keep your number, you keep your phone, or this month get Black Friday prices on new phones like the iPhone 12 that I got for just $479.
They have a 30-day risk-free guarantee, so you literally have nothing to lose.
Go to puretalk.com and shop for the plan and phone that's right for you.
Then enter promo code SAVEHALF. And you'll save 50% off your first month and to save on a new phone.
That's puretalk.com.
Promo code SAVEHALF. PureTalk is simply smarter wireless.
Some restrictions apply.
See the site for details. Welcome to the podcast.
Thanks for joining me. I appreciate it.
Gee, let me start by asking you to reflect upon the kind of broader trend in the country as seen both in the Virginia and the New Jersey election.
Do you see a pattern here?
Is this a great repudiation of Biden or is it something a little bit more narrow?
What do you think? Well, I think it's definitely the cycle for Republicans, and it's going to be the same way in the midterms going forward, and that's just normal.
I do feel like it's a little more narrow than maybe some of the media is portraying it, because Youngkin did well in a blue state, in Virginia, and of course, New Jersey was very close, but Keep in mind that I know he ran in a blue state, but here's a guy that's a Republican that's running, his primary platform is running to increase spending by billions of dollars on education.
And so he's really taking the left's message and using it to win.
So that gives me a pause for concern for the Republican Party in general and our principals in general.
You know, because we stand for less government, less spending, and we, of course, stand for freedom of education.
And I know he he was running on increasing charter schools and things like that also.
But it's still it's a great victory.
Look, this is a great victory for the Republican Party.
And it certainly sends a message that the Democrats are in trouble.
And you would agree, wouldn't you, Don, that, I mean, presumably, we need a different kind of republicanism in different parts of the country.
All I mean by that is that if you're running in Maine, you're probably going to end up with somebody closer to Susan Collins than you are, for example, to somebody like Tom Cotton, right?
So could it be that in a place like Virginia, which, as you say, is a moderate state, it's tended to go blue recently.
But I remember when I came of age in the 80s and 90s, it was a republican state, Virginia-wise.
So could it be that a guy like Youngkin is better suited to Virginia, and that's what enabled him to run so strong against McAuliffe?
Well, results speak for themselves, and yes, that's true.
Absolutely. But it does, like I said, it still, this is, I mean, it gives me pause for concern, because it's not about courage and leadership in the sense of what the Republican Party's about, which is liberty.
And that the fundamental role of government is always to protect our God-given liberties.
And our liberties come from God.
And any time you expand government, of course, you're decreasing our liberties.
And so even though that message might resonate more in Maine, it's still what we're doing is compromising more and more with the left.
And I think the electorate is very, very thirsty.
For courageous leadership that will enable us to get back to our fundamental principles of what this country was founded on, which is that we're not working for the government.
This is about our liberty, our God-given liberty, and our natural rights.
Let me ask you about a race in Texas.
I'll turn in the next segment to talk about some specific issues, but it seems a very encouraging result out of San Antonio.
This was in a state race where this guy, Lujan, won as a Republican a seat that was an open seat, but apparently had been held for some time by the Democrats.
Talk about not just that race specifically, but the larger issue of whether or not we're beginning to see Hispanic Texas become competitive for Republicans.
Oh, it's a trend that's really real in Texas.
It certainly is.
And it's exciting for not just Texas, but for the whole nation.
And I've always said this, that if anyone's a regular churchgoer, they need to be in the Republican Party.
And the Hispanic community, of course, has a strong belief and a strong affinity for family and for church, and they're really pro-life.
And so these are folks that are going to be coming into the Republican Party, and I think they're coming in by droves.
And another thing the Hispanic community really gravitates to is leadership, strong, courageous leadership.
And that's why Trump did so well on the border, in the border area of Texas.
And it's not just the Hispanic community, really, but it's across the nation.
The country is thirsty for real political leaders that aren't concerned about their political ramifications of their decisions.
They want people that are going to make the decisions that's best for the community and best for the state and the country.
And so that's why Trump did well.
And our message in Texas is resonating very well with the Hispanic community.
When we come back, I want to probe some of the key issues facing Texas.
I want to talk to Don Huffines about how we can take this red state and make it even more successful, even perhaps redder.
Who likes aches and pains?
Nobody. But they come to us all eventually, whether from the normal wear and tear of time or from injury.
Now there's a 100% drug-free solution.
It's called Relief Factor.
Relief Factor supports your body's fight against inflammation.
That's the source of aches and pains.
The vast, vast majority of people who try Relief Factor order more and more.
Why? Because it works for them.
Debbie has been suffering from frozen shoulder for a couple of years now.
She decided, let's give it a try, and she found it works amazingly well.
Her pain went away.
Debbie also knows that if she doesn't take it regularly, the pain comes right back, so she's made about never to be without it again.
Being able to lift her arm and exercise is super important to her, and relief factor is the tool she needs.
She's glad she's got it.
You, too, can benefit.
Try for yourself. Order the three-week quick start for the discounted price of just $19.95.
Go to relieffactor.com or call 833-690-7246 to find out more about the software.
That number again, 833-690-7246 or go to relieffactor.com.
Feel the difference. I'm back with former Texas state senator, now candidate for Texas governor, Don Huffines.
Don, you mentioned in the last segment the border, and I just saw some images today of Texas having created a sort of, well, I have to call it a makeshift wall because it was all kinds of stuff sort of intended to block this latest caravan that is apparently on its way to the Texan border.
Let me ask you this.
How do you assess the situation on the border?
Obviously Biden has been pushing for a virtual open border.
Do you approve of the things that have been done so far?
What else could we be doing more?
Well, this is the number one issue not only affecting Texas, but probably the United States.
This is a premeditated attack on Texas and the country.
The federal government's never going to secure the border.
They never have. Even when we had the trifecta in Washington, Trump had a lot of difficulty in securing the border.
We had tens of thousands of illegals pouring across Texas.
He was trying to build the wall, but it didn't get that done.
Look, the only chance we have of securing that border is of a courageous governor of Texas, period.
And when I'm governor, I'm telling you I'm never asking permission from the federal government to secure the Texas border.
I'm using Article 1, Section 10 of the Constitution, which clearly gives the states the authority to stop an invasion when the federal government's not helping.
This is an invasion.
The Border Patrol, I've been there three times, for instance, and I was on the committee when I was in the State Senate, when I was there 14 to 18, for border security.
And Border Patrol is telling me right now that a million and a half illegals are going to flood Texas in a 12-month period, unapprehended.
Of course, they're all smuggled in by the cartels, the most dangerous criminal organizations in the world.
And this is any way you define it, an invasion.
It's an invasion of Texas.
Do you think, Don, do you think that the federal government—I mean, this is the Biden administration—is sort of working at least in tacit coordination with the drug traffickers and the cartels?
I say that because if you look at some of these caravans, and they're not even at the border.
They're in the south of Mexico trekking their way to the border— But they're carrying Biden signs as if to say we're coming with a personal invitation from Joe Biden.
Surely the U.S. government knows they're coming.
They're probably in regular communication with them.
So are we seeing a kind of, I won't call it a conspiracy, but a coordinated effort essentially to breach our sovereignty?
Absolutely, this is.
This is a coordinated effort between the United States government and the Mexican government.
This is a premeditated attack, like I said.
Look, the Biden administration is committed to giving amnesty to every illegal in this country, and it's not 11 million.
It's more like 35 to 40 million.
And in Texas, it's millions.
And that will turn Texas blue, of course, because they're going to get to vote.
And I'm going to engage the entire Texas military to secure the river, to secure the border.
There's 25 crossings over the river, and we're going to secure every one of them to stop all inbound commercial traffic from Mexico.
And this is strategic to make sure Mexico feels the economic pain, and they secure their side of the river and take it back from the cartels.
I'm not going to let them bring a truck in here.
We got to have an incentive for Mexico to cooperate because they're being an extremely bad neighbor.
I love Mexico and I love Mexicans, but they're being a bad neighbor.
But Greg Abbott is never going to secure the border.
He doesn't have the political will, the political courage.
He could have done it seven years ago or seven days ago.
It's never going to happen. That's why this election, the primary election for the governor of Texas, is the most important election in the country.
Don, recently the Wall Street Journal report that the Biden administration had this plan to pay illegals who had supposedly been detained, separated from families under Trump, $450,000 apiece.
Now, Biden was asked about this by Peter Doocy of Fox News.
And he didn't seem to know anything about it.
He was like, what? What are you saying?
How much? How much?
And he's like, it's not going to happen.
Do you think that this is a case where, first of all, do you think Biden was putting on an acting performance?
Or do you think he literally is clueless?
He didn't even know.
And what do you think is going to happen to the $450K? I was thinking of going down there myself to collect.
But do you attribute this to incompetence on the part of the Biden team?
Or do you think this is just willful malevolence?
You know, I really am very concerned about who's running this country right now.
I don't think Biden's running the country.
I don't know who's running the country.
I don't know if it's a group of people running it.
I don't think Kamala Harris is running the country.
Uh, So, it really, to me, it's immaterial if he knew about it or not.
The fact is, they're even planning it, and that's a fact, and they're probably going to do something like this just proves the point.
They're here to destroy the nation.
They're here to destroy Texas, and we lose Texas.
We're not just losing the nation, we're losing the free world.
It's all over. And look, this is the most serious issue I think affecting our country.
Border Patrol is telling me, by the way, they've captured illegals from 147 different countries since the beginning of the year.
147 countries. They're not just all Mexicans.
They're from almost every nation on earth.
Now they're shaving their beards and they're coming in from Afghanistan and they're speaking Spanish.
This is a national security issue.
And the only way we can stop it is with a courageous governor of Texas.
And that's why I'm going to use the military, all of it.
And I'm using the Constitution to fix a situation.
Just give me one more quick example.
Every road that leads to those bridges across that river It's a Texas road, state road paid for by our taxpayers here in Texas, and we can do anything we want with those roads.
We don't have any federal control over that.
We can pull them up, and we'll make sure Mexico secures their side of that river.
That's very interesting. I really appreciate it.
Thank you, Don Huffines, for joining me on the podcast.
You're certainly welcome.
Thank you for having me.
Guys, I think you know I'm a fan of Mike Lindell and MyPillow, but I love his new products.
Mike has done it again by introducing his new MySlippers.
Now, Mike has taken over two years to develop these slippers.
They're designed to weigh indoor or outdoor all day long.
They're made with MyPillow foam and impact gel to help prevent fatigue.
Made with quality leather suede.
For a limited time, Mike is offering 50% off the new MySlippers.
The MySlippers, by the way, they're so comfortable, you're going to want to get some for the whole family.
We actually did. Here's Danielle with her moccasins.
Of course, Debbie and I just love ours.
I got the moccasins.
Debbie got the slip-ons.
Go to MyPillow.com and use promo code Dinesh.
You'll get deep discounts on all the MyPillow products, the Giza Dream bedsheets, the MyPillow mattress topper, the MyPillow towel sets, and so on.
Call 800-876-0227 or go to MyPillow.com to get the discounts.
You need to use promo code Dinesh.
I've been talking off and on on the podcast about the terrible conditions of the jail in which January 6th defendants, and in some cases others, are being held.
And it has been an allegation that the jail authorities have denied, the government has denied, the DOJ has denied.
Their claim is that we're treating these guys sort of no differently.
Our jail conditions are obviously it's jail.
But everyone is being treated properly and humanely.
And we now know that that's false because the U.S. Marshals have marched into the D.C. jail.
This is called the Central Detention Facility, CDF. It houses about 1,500 detainees, including a bunch of January 6th defendants.
And the marshals have found out that there is, quote, systematic mistreatment of detainees, including unsanitary living conditions and the punitive denial of food and water.
Let's pause for a moment. The punitive denial of food and water means they're deliberately withholding food and water from the inmates to punish them.
This is being done by the guards.
And it's being done evidently with the knowledge, or at least the indifference, of the authorities.
And the authorities are going all the way to the top.
The jail warden, Wanda Patton, D.C. Corrections Director, Quincy Booth.
Let's remember that Judge Royce Lamberth When considering the case of Christopher Worrell, he got this whole process started.
He noticed that Christopher Worrell had cancer, had a broken hand, was not getting proper treatment.
He demanded that the medical notes be turned over to him.
They weren't. So he found these DC officials in contempt.
And he said, basically, there could be a civil rights violation here.
The Justice Department needs to look into it.
So in response, the marshals go marching in the jail.
And it's just disgusting what they find.
They observe, well, first of all, quote, the smell of urine and feces was overpowering in many locations.
What? They talk about the food being substandard, and they say, quote, water and food appear to be withheld from detainees for punitive reasons.
They also notice that, quote, jail members were, quote, observed antagonizing detainees instead of angering them, like poking them, and, quote, directing detainees not to cooperate with the prison review.
And finally, one prisoner was warned by a staff member to, quote, stop snitching.
So these are guys...
Who are under the thumb of these guards.
And I understand from these guards, many of these are African migrants.
They are people who essentially have been trained to develop this kind of idea that they're filled with racial hatred.
They're told that it's open season on the people who are in the jails.
And no one is going to hold them accountable.
So it's a good first step that the marshals are on it.
Basically, what the marshals are doing is they're shutting this facility down pending a kind of review, and they're moving these 1,500 people to another facility.
In Lewisburg, Pennsylvania.
So this is an acknowledgement, I think a vindication of those of us who have said yes, that this is a bad situation in which people's basic civil rights are being violated.
The marshals seem to be based upon direct review and observational evidence now affirming that this is correct.
There is a very deep and interesting article on abortion in the magazine First Things, the October issue, written by someone who used to be a friend of mine.
I say used to, I just mean I've lost touch with her over the years.
Her name is Mary Eberstadt, a very capable, very talented writer, and writes about these sorts of issues surrounding family and culture.
And I want to go through the article because of how, in a sophisticated way, it looks at abortion, not just in the context of the decision itself.
That's the point. We always look at, oh, there's a woman, she's in a terrible situation, she's deciding whether to have an abortion.
But Mary Eberstadt said, let's look at these decisions in the context of your life.
Now, One interesting thing about the people who oppose abortion, by and large, their position is principled, right?
Life is sacred. You can't take life.
Life is a gift from God.
So their position is, in a sense, absolute.
It's driven by an understanding or kind of a view of what life is.
But the champions of abortion, Mary says correctly, I think, their logic is more utilitarian.
By utilitarian, I mean they're kind of weighing the pluses and minuses.
And so their argument is that, look, in certain circumstances, the ending of life can be a good thing.
It increases human happiness.
It certainly increases the happiness of the woman.
Welcome to my show!
Of two young women, 20 years old, let's say circa 1975 or 1980, and they're both students in college.
Well, one's a student in college.
Let's call her Patricia.
And the other, let's say, is just someone who dropped out of high school.
And let's call her Kelly.
And Patricia here has gotten pregnant from her boyfriend, and so she's in a bad situation.
She goes to Planned Parenthood.
Her boyfriend comes along, and she's thinking of having an abortion.
Kelly is a high school grad.
She's a receptionist at a kind of auto dealership.
She too has a boyfriend who works a working class job at a mill.
And so she too goes in to have a pregnancy test.
And she too, both the young women are in the same situation that they don't know what to do.
Now, Patricia, the first woman, decides, okay, let me have an abortion, and she does.
And the abortion is initially a tremendous relief.
Why? Because suddenly, problem solved.
Turns out that there's friction with her boyfriend because suddenly this was a kind of casual relationship.
Suddenly there's complexity, the potential addition of a new life.
Do I want to become a parent?
So this phrase, as often happens, the relationship between the couple, they kind of go their separate ways.
But Patricia now is, quote, liberated to go on to college, to pursue her career, to get a law degree.
And so she goes to all that with a tremendous sort of enthusiasm.
Kelly, on the other hand, appears to be In a different situation, she decides for whatever reason, it could be a religious reason, but it could just be that she can't bring herself to do it.
She decides, you know what? I'm going to have the baby.
I'm going to do it. And so she does.
In her case too, the man takes off.
He doesn't want the responsibilities of being a father.
And so here's Kelly. And initially, she's in a much worse situation than Patricia.
Why? Because first of all, she has to go through the agony of the pregnancy itself.
There's pain, there's epidurals.
Her parents are outraged that she's having a child out of wedlock.
But, very interestingly, as the process goes forward, her family accommodates to it.
Her mother goes, well, okay, I'm going to become a grandmother.
Let me prepare for that.
Her brother decides, I'm going to become an uncle.
Okay, well, and they start helping her out, and they start helping her go through this difficult process.
Now, the first woman, Patricia, goes on, gets a law degree, gets very good grades, gets a job at a law firm, is earning a lot of money, and she's forgotten all about her decision.
In fact, to the degree she even thinks about it, she thinks, yes, that was a good decision.
I'm pro-choice.
But Kelly, the other girl, having had a child, suddenly realized, I can't live without this child.
This child is indispensable to me.
And the child itself creates around it a web of relationships that goes way beyond the child and the mother.
Suddenly, the extended family is around.
Suddenly, even though the boyfriend took off, he still now shows up occasionally.
Maybe he doesn't pay child support, but he shows up and he looks at the kid or takes the kid on weekends.
Even his parents become involved.
They occasionally do babysitting.
So suddenly you have a little community that's sort of built up around this little child.
And now we want to fast forward to maybe 10 or 20 years, and you find that Kelly is now 40 years old.
She doesn't work at that auto dealership anymore.
In fact, she got fired when she took too long of a maternal leave, so she now works in a day school.
And who goes to the school?
Her kid. And so she's at the day school.
She meets a guy over there who also works at the school.
They get married. They have two more kids of their own.
So now they have three children, and they're building a family.
They're not well off. They might be struggling in some ways, but the family is the center of their life.
Meanwhile, the other woman, Patricia, becomes a successful partner in a law firm.
She meets a lawyer over there.
He's kind of older.
Initially, they decide they're going to adopt a child or they're going to do IVF because, of course, Patricia is older, she's deferred, having children so she can advance her career.
And while she was very cool and rose up in the law firm, she even made partner, she suddenly notices that the partners who once lavished a lot of attention on her when she was younger, now that she's in her 40s and 50s, their attention is focused elsewhere on younger associates at the firm.
So she suddenly sees to be kind of the hot property that she thought she was and she thought they thought that she was.
And now we come to the The kind of the climax, which is we fast forward to today, and suddenly says the writer Mary Eberstadt, we have these two women, and they're sort of on their deathbed.
And they're surrounded by whom?
Kelly is surrounded by a huge network.
She's surrounded by all her loved ones.
She has her children. She has her grandchildren.
She has her extended family.
Patricia... Has her husband.
They have one child, but this was a late child, and the child is now actually doing something else, so they're not on the scene.
And so suddenly, the question we come back to, which of these two women has looked at from the point of view of the end of your life, surveying your life as a whole, who has had the better life?
And Mary's point is not to answer one or the other very easily, but to say, this is actually a close call.
A good argument can be had that Kelly, who had the child, has had a better life.
Why? Because she has lived in a web of loving community.
Even though it was not a life without difficulty and hardship, even though she took the plunge in making a decision where she didn't know where it was going to go, she never regrets that decision.
She never looks back and says, you know what?
I wish I chose otherwise.
But Patricia, although she's had a more successful life monetarily, she's traveled, she's been to Europe, she goes business class, she's got a lot of amenities and accoutrements that the other woman cannot possibly expect to have.
But nevertheless, her life is, in terms of values, in terms of relationships, it's thinner.
It's a little bit less whole.
It's less satisfying.
And so by the very criterion we set up at the beginning of this conversation, the utilitarian standard, the measure of happiness against pain, by that standard, by the pro-choice standard itself, one may say that the pro-choice person comes out worse and the pro-life person comes out not just better,
▲
Export Selection