All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 12, 2022 - Dinesh D'Souza
46:40
Trump Was Right Dinesh D’Souza Podcast Ep 433
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
This episode is brought to you by my friend Rebecca Walser, a financial expert who can help you protect your wealth.
Book your free call with her team by going to friendofdinesh.com.
That's friendofdinesh.com.
Hi, everyone. I'm Danielle D'Souza-Gill.
I'm delighted to be back with you all today as the guest host of the Dinesh D'Souza podcast.
Now, my dad was a little bit worried about how this was going to go last week.
On Friday, he expressed some deep concerns about how the podcast was going to go, but he's listened the last two days, and now he's very relaxed, so he's enjoying his time doing other stuff.
So we're good to go. So if you've been listening, thanks for listening.
And if you are new, I'm Dinesh's daughter hosting this week.
So we have a lot to cover today.
The theme of today's show is Trump was right.
He was right about the border.
He was right about Biden.
He was right about the Democrats.
He was right about all of it.
We will dive in.
We'll also be talking today to Josh Hammer, opinion editor at Newsweek, and Jessie Jane Duff, a retired Marine gunnery sergeant.
This is the Dinesh D'Souza podcast.
The times are crazy and a time of confusion, division, and lies.
We need a brave voice of reason, understanding, and truth.
This is the Dinesh D'Souza Podcast.
You all have helped build MyPillow into the incredible company it is today, and have trusted in Mike Lindell to give you a great night's sleep.
On top of the special exclusively for my listeners, on the Percale and Giza Dream bed sheets marked down as low as $29.98, Mike's now changing the game with his three-piece towel set.
This set is made with USA cotton, making it extremely absorbent, yet still providing that soft feel you look for in a towel.
The set comes with one bath, one hand towel, and one washcloth, typically retailing for $49.99.
But for a limited time, you can get this three-piece towel set for the low price of $19.98 with promo code Dinesh.
Don't miss out on these incredible offers.
There's a limited supply, so be sure to order now.
Call 1-800-876-0277 and use the promo code Dinesh.
Or go to MyPillow.com, click on the radio listener square, and use promo code Dinesh.
This offer will not last long.
They are known to sell quick, so order now with promo code Dinesh at MyPillow.com.
If I were to quiz you about George Floyd and Black Lives Matter, how many questions would you get right? If you were only listening to the mainstream media, you'd most likely fail. The media lied to you about George Floyd and ignored the fact that the Black Lives Matter organization used his name to raise $90 million. If you ever wondered where the money went, we finally have some answers. And on October 12th, Candace Owens' documentary The Greatest Lie Ever Sold will bring all those answers to
light. Candace went to Minneapolis to the scene of the violent, racially divided aftermath that tore our nation apart.
And she followed the money to uncover BLM executives living in million-dollar mansions.
But that's just the start of how all that money is being used to further corrupt traditional American values.
If you want a good dose of reality to counteract the narrative, you need to see this film.
Go to dailywire.com and become a Daily Wire Plus member.
You will not want to miss it.
That's dailywire.com.
As the midterms approach, we enter what's become the season of October surprises.
As you know, an October surprise is when campaigns drop their most devastating political attacks at a time when those attacks are deemed most effective.
And the media, which is staffed and controlled by the most powerful corporations and establishment politicians, is chomping at the bit to once again punch down on lower- and working-class Americans with more Democrat propaganda.
We already have one example, the anonymously sourced attack on Georgia Senate candidate Herschel Walker.
However, what's interesting about this story is not that it's another completely baseless attempt to salaciously malign a conservative candidate for office.
No, what's interesting about this story is that anyone anywhere takes it seriously for even half a second.
At this point in 2022, when the FBI is scouring the country for members of the political opposition, you'd think most people would have caught on to the fact that those smiling faces on the glowy box have something of a credibility problem.
And yet, most people, even conservatives, reflexively gasp at every tabloid insinuation put into electrons.
Even if that insinuation concerns a race that has a conspicuously high level of strategic importance to the Democrat oppressor class.
What's wrong with us?
Why do we keep going back to the same untrustworthy people for information?
Is this a form of collective battered wife syndrome?
The press is not here to help.
They are actively looking for the slightest pretense to paint you as a terrorist in order to throw you in a prison where they treat you so bad you'll go blind from malnutrition.
They aren't just this once telling the truth.
And they won't at any future time tell the truth.
They're liars.
Slick, seasoned, professional, highly paid, and well-connected liars.
It's what they do and why they're there.
Unlike our first Puerto Rican president, their lies aren't a habitual tick born of a lifetime of dissembling.
The media's lies are deliberate.
Targeted at some future utopia where both a gallon of gas and a bottle of ketchup cost $8.
As a matter of fact, over the past five or six years, the media has been caught red-handed, telling whoppers of such grand scale that they undermined American democracy and caused massive nationwide economic and physical devastation.
However, very much like the feds, they have investigated themselves and concluded they're blameless.
Their very own scandals have been completely memory-holed.
Disappeared quicker than a Christian protester at an FBI picnic.
I get it.
Such big accusations demand proof.
I'm not the corporate media, so I can cite myself and say it comes from sources familiar with the matter.
So, let's just take a brief glance at the many times the media lied and Trump was right.
Keep in mind, this list of media malfeasance is only cursory.
We're picking low-hanging fruit, and I could go on about this for the rest of the week.
The rest of the year, actually.
So I'm going to do a little something I call Trump Was Right.
This may become a regular segment on this show if I stick around longer or come back to guest hosts.
We'll see. But let's go back to early days when the media accused Trump of saying, without evidence, that Trump Tower was being monitored.
It turns out the FBI was surveilling Trump and his campaign through Carter Page via a warrant so untruthful that even Helmut Ray had to admit to Congress that not only that such surveillance took place, but that it was also illegal.
Fact check, Trump was right.
Under that story about the server, under Trump Tower secretly connected to the Russian Alpha Bank, the story Trump denied and was eventually proven to be an outright lie shopped to the media by none other than Hillary Clinton's campaign, another fact check for Trump, and we haven't even left his iconic tower.
And what about the Russia election hacking cover story?
This is a unique story because it was shopped in multiple formats.
Some outlets claimed Russia hacked U.S. election infrastructure.
This overblown story took some isolated laptop malfunctions in a single county and proffered them as proof the Kremlin ran the 2016 election.
It wasn't until 2020 that the DHS finally admitted that story wasn't true.
But the Russia hacking story used to frame Trump concerned the DNC server.
You know, the hack that revealed the Democrats were racist, manipulative liars?
The hack that Trump dispatched Bob Mueller to investigate only to come up empty-handed?
Well, it turns out that story, as well, was another lie planted by Hillary's campaign to be manipulated by the corrupt media and government.
That's two more points for Trump.
And who can forget the legendary Ukrainian phone call scandal, the one that led to President Trump's first impeachment trial?
The president himself blew up those accusations when he released full transcript that proved Alexander the buffet bomber, Vindman's attempt to implement his own personal foreign policy instead of that of his boss.
Again, Trump was right.
While we're on the topic of impeachments, let's talk about that second impeachment.
You know, the one that happened after Trump left office?
Apparently, calling for peaceful protests and tweeting out calls for his supporters to go home later that same day is not the same as taking over a first world nuclear powerhouse.
No wonder that impeachment also failed.
Trump was right. There's a really good trick to finding more examples of Trump being right.
Just search for the phrase, without evidence.
For example, this MSNBC article that says, quote, It's a gotcha headline based on a misleading quote.
In reality, Trump said only that it was possible but very likely around that time.
The emergency use authorization was signed by the FDA on November 20th.
Verdict? Trump was right.
NPR was criticized for claiming Trump had no evidence that Kyle Rittenhouse shot in self-defense.
On November 19th, 2021, Kyle was found not guilty on all counts by a jury of his peers.
Don't look now, but Trump was right again.
Trump's entire presidency was marked by this incessant and baseless ankle biting.
It seemed a man couldn't even feed fish without sending the press into a frenzy.
They endlessly forecast gloom and doom over his economic, energy, and foreign policies, even though his economy was booming and under Trump, we lived in a more secure America, a safer America, and a more prosperous America.
Again, Trump was right.
Now that we're being asked to eat bugs and give up home heating at two minutes from nuclear midnight under Sleepy Joe, these same people seem to think, this is fine.
And it might be for them.
If they want to live like that, be my guest.
But that's never how it works.
The people who put Biden's horrible policies in place are never the ones who suffer.
It's the rest of us.
However, who don't have fully stocked bunkers under palatial mansions to wait out the rest of Biden's build-back-better policies to work their magic.
We need a president whose grasp of reality goes at least as far as being able to tell if a congresswoman is alive or dead.
We need truth.
We need Trump. The sooner, the better.
A daily dose is 10 servings of fruits and veggies.
Sourced from 31 different fruits and veggies, daily dose is 6 easy capsules, 3 fruits and 3 veggies.
I don't eat anywhere near 10 daily servings of fruits and veggies.
Balance of nature is the way I ensure I give my body what it needs to stay healthy.
Sometimes the worst tasting veggies are the ones that are the best for you.
That's why I take balance of nature, so I can get all the nutrients my body needs.
All those vibrant colors in the produce section of the supermarket, those represent all the nutritional variety you need to stay healthy.
If you're not eating every one of those fruits and veggies, you need to do what I do.
Take Balance of Nature every day.
My busy life means I rarely am able to eat all the fruits and veggies that I should.
There's just not enough time in the day.
But I'm not sacrificing my health just because I'm busy.
I take those six easy capsules of Balance of Nature every day and so should you.
Many folks wait until they don't feel good to start taking Balance of Nature.
Start today like me.
Balance of Nature helps put all the right building blocks in place for your health and immune system so you have your best shot at staying healthy.
Join me and experience the Balance of Nature difference for yourself.
For a limited time, all new preferred customers will receive an additional 35% discount and free shipping on your first Balance of Nature order.
Use discount code AMERICA.
With the consumer price index increasing yet again, the stock market has been in absolute What's our illustrious leader doing to quell the surge of inflation that's destroying American families?
Oh yeah, spending more money and adding to the burden.
Don't bury your head in the sand while your savings get decimated.
Do something about it.
I'm diversified into gold with Birch Gold, and you can too.
Text Dinesh to 989898.
Birch Gold will send you a free info kit on protecting your savings with gold in a tax-sheltered account.
These are great people with almost 20 years' experience of converting IRAs and 401ks into precious metals IRAs.
Don't allow the left to devalue your savings.
Text Dinesh to 989898 and claim your free info kit from Birch Gold.
Again, you can own physical gold and silver in a tax-sheltered retirement account, and Birch Gold will help you do it.
Join their thousands of satisfied customers like me.
Check them out. Text Dinesh to 989898 and secure your future with gold.
Do it today. I'm delighted to welcome our guest today, Josh Hammer.
Josh Hammer is the opinion editor at Newsweek.
Josh is a constitutional attorney by training.
He hosts the Josh Hammer Show, a Newsweek podcast, and co-hosts the Edmund Burke Foundation's NatCon Squad podcast.
Josh, thanks for joining us.
In a recent Economist YouGov poll, 94% of respondents said jobs and the economy was important to them, topping every other concern except inflation, which scored the same.
According to an average of polls compiled by RealClearPolitics, 59% of Americans disapprove of Biden's handling of the economy.
We've also seen that critical Senate races in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Nevada, and Arizona appear to be shifting in favor of Republicans.
So what do you think about this lead we have so far up to November?
And do you think that there could be some October surprises up the sleeves of the Democrats until then?
Well, Danielle, thanks for having me.
Great to be with you, as always. I mean, what you just read, those polls kind of remind me of something that I have been saying on my own podcast, on radio, TV, you name it, for many months now, actually, which is, you know, back in July, I think a lot of us in kind of the right-leaning commentary of punditry space were predicting a big red wave.
The red wave was kind of like the phrase that I think a lot of us invoked last summer.
Then around, like, August, maybe into early September, really kind of the month of August, I think a lot of people started to get a little skittish, kind of, like, just a little bit, and there was, like...
That the so-called Dobbs backlash to the Supreme Court's abortion case might have been having an effect.
But around that time that some people, especially on our side, were starting to get a little more cautious, pessimistic, and skittish, I kind of took upon myself, you know, I was not the only one.
A lot of others did. And I reminded folks, like, the fundamentals, the basic kind of bare-bones political fundamentals of this midterm election still heavily favored Republicans.
I mean, first of all, come the first midterm election after a president is elected, It almost always goes to the opposing party, you know, period.
One notable exception was 2002.
The Republicans did well.
That was in the aftermath of kind of Bush's high approval ratings after 9-11.
But, you know, do you kind of take that?
You combine it with the fact that Joe Biden's approval ratings are historically low and they were historically low for much of the summer.
Inflation is very, very bad.
I mean, it's getting maybe marginally better than it was a few months ago.
It's still well above 8%.
That's still the worst it's been since the 1980s when Paul Volcker was a chair of the Federal Reserve there.
So from kind of being on our own side to not lose faith that it's that this election probably still goes ultimately tilt to Republicans.
And I feel pretty vindicated.
I mean, as you said, I think Dr. Oz has it over Fetterman in Pennsylvania.
I think Adam Laxalt is going to win that Senate race in Nevada.
I think J.D. Vance is super safe in Ohio.
Ron Johnson looks like he has in Wisconsin.
I actually even think Herschel Walker is probably it.
I think he's probably going to be OK, especially because Brian Kemp, as of this morning, the we're reporting, has a 10 point lead over Stacey Abrams in the governor's race.
That's even close to true.
And I have to think Herschel comes across the finish line.
But I think Republicans are still in very good shape, as they have been for many months now to repeat the Senate this this November.
Yeah.
And I actually want to get your reaction to this.
I just saw this Breitbart article that came out.
It says, they messed with the wrong Georgian.
Herschel Walker raises record 350k in one day.
And this comes out after, you know, some of kind of the negative reporting came out on him.
But yet he's really bounced back.
So I think that's a lot of our candidates are actually doing really well.
And despite, you know, the left's attempt to take them down, I think that they'll actually push through.
Do you agree with that? I do agree with that.
But, you know, the point is, Herschel Walker has spoken quite openly, I think, about kind of his checkered personal past.
He has been very, very open about that, that he has become a born-again Christian, and he has found his religious conviction, that he believes in redemption and so forth, right?
So very little of this Daily Beast kind of October surprise hit job that they're trying to do against Herschel Walker, very little of it is new news.
One other thing that's worth noting here, You know, my old friend Eric Erickson, who lives in Georgia, noted this on one of his morning substacks.
The Democrats and the left in general would try to kind of gaslight Republicans into disavowing Herschel Walker at the same time that they are just totally standing by John Fetterman, who can barely put a sentence together, okay?
...reporting that the state of John Fetterman is that bad right now, but it just happens to be the case that he had a stroke, and we all wish him, obviously, you know, a swift...
A full convalescence, a full recovery.
But, you know, he did a recent interview with NBC Nightly News, and I saw a tweet yesterday that said that on the interview, he had to use closed captioning because he couldn't understand audio, what he was hearing.
I mean, and Democrats, the same Democrats were telling Republicans, oh, how could you vote for Herschel Walker?
How could you vote for Herschel? They are standing by John Fetterman to this day, the guy who literally needs closed captioning to have an interview.
So the double standard is, and the hypocrisy is through the roof on this, But, you know, I really do think that Blake is going to pull through for a similar reason, because Carrie Lake is doing so well on the governor rates, just like Brian Kemp in Georgia.
So these governors, I think, could pull through some of these Senate candidates.
Yeah, absolutely. And it was also kind of crazy when you mentioned Fetterman, because I saw recently that leftists are trashing NBC's Dasha Burns for highlighting John Fetterman's mental handicaps, because basically the left has decided that if they all stick together and just keep on pushing a narrative, we'll all just buy it, which is that, you know, he's completely fine, which is kind of what they do with Biden also.
So, if you're a Democrat who shies away from that or says anything, gosh forbid, that, you know, parts from their narrative, they start freaking out.
But I actually want to ask you about the Supreme Court, because you are an expert on this.
And so, as we look ahead to the court, I want to ask what your thoughts are on kind of conservatives who were skeptical of Trump before we got this, you know, supermajority that we have now, who were saying, you know, we don't know about Trump's tweets.
We don't know about this about Trump.
Well, if those people were to look at the court now and see that Trump pulled through on that, do you think that those people might change their tune on Trump?
Good question. I mean, I'm not entirely sure.
I mean, if you go back to the 2016 exit polling, if I'm correct correctly, I mean, the number one issue that I think Republican primary voters most I mean, going back to 2016, of course, Justice Anthony Scalia, the conservative titan, had passed away in February 2016.
And then Chuck Grassley held that seat open.
So the very future of the Supreme Court was on the ballot box.
For issue, the economy, crime, immigration, it really goes to court according to kind of reputable exit polling that was the number one issue that most led Republicans to vote for Trump.
If you recall also, Danielle, in that 2016 election, one thing that President Trump, or I guess at that time it was just candidate Trump, one thing that he did that no other presidential candidate ever before him had done was he actually unveiled an explicit list.
And he vowed that he would kind of pick his Supreme Court justices from this list.
That reassured a lot of the skeptics.
So we'll see what happens.
But if you go back to those 2016 primary debates, one thing that Donald Trump said over and over again is that he would nominate pro-life justices.
He actually didn't just say originalist justice.
He said pro-life justice.
And he said that he would overturn Roe v.
Wade. And that obviously happened.
I mean, to this day, months and months after the Dobbs decision, I still kind of have to pinch myself.
Did this really happen? It's been kind of the goal of the conservative legal movement for decades and decades before I was frankly born.
And so, you know, promises made, promises kept on that particular issue, to put it mildly here, and, you know, last term was a prolific term in general.
My hope is that we can keep the momentum going this term.
There are not as many kind of prolific culture war cases on the docket this year as there were last term, but there definitely are a few.
And, you know, I had my column a couple weeks ago kind of trying to highlight them for the reader, so I'm definitely trying to pay as close attention as I can, and hopefully we'll get some meaningful victories this term as well.
Yeah, no, I mean, that's so true.
We really do have Trump to thank for the justices that we have, for Roe v.
Wade being overturned.
And I think many people were right in betting on Trump because he actually had the guts to nominate conservative justices.
But I want to ask you a little bit about the UNC Chapel Hill case and also the affirmative action case with Harvard.
The court's hearing these separately, but they touch on, you know, similar issues.
So they touch on diversity, proportional representation, discrimination, and Can you tell us a little bit about these cases?
Sure. So these are two affirmative action challenges.
I mean, there's one out of Harvard, one out of UNC Chapel Hill, as you said, Danielle.
First of all, personal aside, I'm a Duke alum and a hardcore Duke fan, so seeing our arch-rivaled UNC kind of be in the Supreme Court's crosshairs is kind of a personally kind of vindicating note for me.
The only reason that they granted Sir and Herb these two cases...
So, in theory, you could have a slightly different interpretation of the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause.
It applies to state action and the extent to which affirmative action is a state action issue.
You'll have some mixed takes on that.
It kind of gets into whether simply taking federal funding makes the university a state actor.
But for all intents and purposes...
These two cases are going to come out the same way because you actually don't necessarily even need to reach the Equal Protection Clause constitutional issue.
You could actually just rule on the statutory issue, which is Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which directly applies, you know, indisputably to both private and public schools.
These two cases out of UNC and Harvard were actually initially consolidated, to use the court terminology, so they were going to hear of them at oral argument together.
Then after Justice Jackson joined the court, They actually deconsolidated it because she is going to be recused from the Harvard case because she was on some sort of fancy advisory board or whatnot.
So she's recused from the Harvard case, but not the UNC case.
But the point here, Danielle, is that the case are going to come out the same way.
And this is actually one issue that even I, who have been kind of a judicial pessimist for as long as I've been thinking and writing about the courts, this is an issue that actually even I am optimistic on.
And I'm optimistic on this issue because even judges This point is the sixth vote.
There are five kind of more solid votes, that is, for conservative outcomes in most cases.
Even he has actually been consistent on going back to his earlier days on the court.
So in 2007, there was a case of Seattle-Washington called Parents Involved, which was a very similar case involving kind of race-centric, race-specific kind of schooling policies.
And he had this famous line, which to this day is probably Chief Justice John Roberts' most famous line he has ever put into an Article 3 Supreme Court opinion, where he said that, quote, the way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.
He has always been kind of an outspoken critic against affirmative action, including kind of the Fisher litigation out of the University of Texas in 2013 and 2016.
So I'm cautiously optimistic that this term could see the demise of the Bakke case of 1978 and the Grutter v.
Bollinger case of 2003 and therefore end affirmative action in America.
The real cherry on top, the real cherry on top would be a Clarence Thomas who has been a vociferous critic of affirmative action for a decade.
If he gets to write the majority opinions, that would just really be delightful.
Absolutely. And we've already had so many great cases come out from the court this last term.
I mean, it's kind of crazy to think just how many came out that were so good for us, even in addition to Roe v.
Wade. We had religious freedom cases.
We had, you know, the Second Amendment cases.
What are your thoughts on why the left constantly wants to only focus on abortion?
Why do they always want to make it about the overturning of Roe and bring everything to that when there are actually a lot of other cases that we've also won on?
I mean, school choice, other issues there too, which we also care about.
So why do you think the left likes to use abortion as their fear-mongering tool?
It's a great question. I'm not sure that I have kind of a fully thought-out answer to that question.
I mean, I guess that I can only speculate.
And I guess that speculation has to do with kind of the extent and the pervasiveness and the ubiquity of sexual liberationism and the sexual revolution of the 1960s.
I mean, you know, it was in the 1960s that the pill birth control started to proliferate and obviously Roe versus Wade was right there in 1973.
And I think for generations of kind of second wave and ultimately third wave feminist leaders who, you know, last of my chapter, still kind of punching above their weight as far as kind of their plot within kind of the political epicenter in this country.
They have viewed abortion as being kind of fundamental to women's kind of economic security, to their way of life.
And frankly, from kind of like a pagan secularist, non-religious perspective to kind of like their basic day to day sexual lifestyle.
So, from their perspective, the Dobbs case is 49 years after Roe vs.
Wade, you're taking away a right, and you're sending women back to kind of like...
I mean, you and I both know these garbage talking points.
It's not going to work. I mean, it's not going to work because if you look at the polling, if you look at the polling consistently, The American people are far, far, far more moderate and reasonable on the issue of the unborn child than the legal, moral, and constitutional rights that the unborn child is entitled to than the Democratic Party and the political lust position.
The Democratic Party...
You know, earlier this year was voting on Congress, statutorily codifying Roe vs.
Wade, or I think they actually didn't quite get to a Senate vote, but they were talking a lot about it.
And what that would have effectively done is it would have legalized, via congressional legislation, abortion really effectively up until the point of birth with very, very narrow exceptions throughout the entire country.
That is a radical, extreme, and frankly, violent, disgusting proposition that would have put the United States on par with such human rights bastions as North Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, and so forth.
But the median American rejects that.
Most Americans want restrictions on abortion, certainly after the first trimester, and perhaps even reasonable restrictions much earlier than that.
So they were always vulnerable on this issue.
I'm not entirely sure why they have put so, so, so much capital.
But the best I could do is speculate that they have really just kind of intuited the various lies of the sexual revolution and sexual liberationism.
They have kind of just drank it as mother's milk.
Yeah, I think Jennifer Lawrence in that same interview when she said, oh, you know, I have nightmares about Tucker Carlson.
She was like, abortion, it's my number one issue.
She thinks about it all the time.
And being a mother made her even more inspired, you know, to focus on abortion, abortion rights and so on.
But I think for the left, you know, they're really so focused on thinking abortion is what's going to drive people out to the polls.
They think that that's going to win them things in the midterms.
But it's actually a very small percentage of Americans who would even consider that their main voting issue, but also would be considering that their main voting issue when they are pro-abortion, because there are people who are just pro-life and that's their main issue.
But I think for the left, for them to think, wow, we're really going to win women because this is the main thing that they're going to be obsessed with, when in places like New York, they can still get late-term abortions, places where there are a lot of liberal women, their laws haven't really changed that much.
Whereas in other places, I mean, take Mississippi, which was the one that went to the court, I mean, that was 15 weeks, which is actually second trimester.
And they would consider that extremely radical.
They could never possibly agree to any kind of restriction of that nature.
Why do you think that they won't agree to any kind of restriction whatsoever?
When we're always asked about some crazy exception, you know, like the 10-year-old situation, whereas they will not even come up with any kind of limitation.
So, two things to be said on this.
So, first, to what you said kind of earlier there in those very eloquent comments, is that even kind of taking the narrow portion of the citizenry for whom abortion is the primarily, the number one issue, there are far more, and polling has shown this consistently for decades now.
Decades. We're good to go.
We fund the basic pro-life argument that the unborn child, you know, is entitled to full kind of legal constitutional and moral rights under our rule of law and under kind of our culture, more generally speaking, then that is literally a life and death issue and it kind of trumps whatever kind of other issues are out there and you have to vote for it.
But, you know, to your other point, Danielle, about why Democrats are so adamant and so they're so unwilling to even kind of countenance the possibility of moderating their position of compromising whatsoever here.
I guess I think what they're afraid of, what they're afraid of doing is once you start acknowledging that there can be prudential limitations on abortion, then the obvious question raised is why?
Why is this procedure any different than from kind of, you know, clipping a toenail or, you know, a transplant or a blood transfusion or whatever?
Why is it any different?
Because once you start to say that there has to be limitation, the very fact that you are acknowledging that there can be limitations, I think exposes that there is some sort of moral distinction to be made between the abortion procedure and any of these other kind of routine, anodyne, day-to-day medical procedures.
And once you start having people asking questions as to why the abortion is different than anything else, well, the obvious answer that it's different, as Justice Alito's opinion and Dobbs actually hints at quite clearly, is that a human life is involved.
And that makes all the difference in the world.
So I think once the left conceives the possibility that there can or from the perspective, God forbid, should be prudential dispensations to unfettered, unlimited abortion, people are gonna start to ask very, very, very tough questions that I think will expose the moral bankruptcy of the broader case for abortion at all.
Absolutely, and I think that's also why they don't say it's the lesser of two evils anymore, because then they'd have to acknowledge that it is an evil, but they literally can't even do that anymore, so they just go down the hole.
Let's just leave it to nine months.
Well, Josh, thank you so much for your thoughts.
I really appreciate your insights.
Aches and pains come to us all eventually, whether from the normal wear and tear of time or from injury.
You have the choice to feel trapped by aches and pains, or you can fight back against it.
The tools are different from a decade or more ago.
Now there's a 100% drug-free relief factor.
I fought back with RF, and you can too.
RF supports your body's fight against inflammation, which is the source of aches and pains.
About 70% of the over half a million people who try relief factor order more.
Because it works for them.
You have nothing to fear and everything to gain.
Isn't it time for you to get out of pain?
I have heard great things about relief factor from many people.
If you know someone who has experienced aches and pains, this is the perfect gift for them.
I know that my mother-in-law, who had a very invasive knee surgery with a long recovery, tried relief factor and found that it worked wonders.
You should give it a try too.
Your first step to becoming pain-free just might be to order the three-week quick start from the discounted price of only $19.95.
Go to relieffactor.com or call 833-690-7246 to find out more about this offer.
That's relieffactor.com or call 833-690-7246.
Feel the difference. I'm delighted to welcome our guest today, Jessie Jane Duff.
She is a gunnery sergeant of the Marine Corps, retired.
Jessie, thanks for joining us.
Hey, so good to be here with you, Danielle.
I'm excited. Throw it at me.
We're ready to roll. Oh my gosh, great.
Okay. Well, today we're going to be talking a lot about Biden.
So, Jessie, I know we were on the Women for Trump tour together.
You were on Veterans for Trump.
You were co-chair of that.
So, I know that we both love Trump.
But I want to start out by asking you a little bit about Joe Biden's recent interview.
In an interview with CNN, Jake Tapper asked Biden, he said, Gas prices are on the rise again.
Should the American people prepare for a recession, he asked Biden.
So Biden said he doesn't believe there will be a recession, and people keep saying this to him every six months in his presidency.
So he says, quote, But Jesse, what does this exactly mean with Biden saying he does expect a slight recession?
And why do you think he has this nonchalant attitude about this?
So I guess you could say that the first thing is that it's very confusing to ever figure out what Biden means, correct?
Because we don't know where this is ever coming from.
Is this what his handlers are telling him?
Or is he essentially trying to be dishonest?
Or is he so confused that he truly believes that he has a robust economy still and we're not in a recession?
We've had two consecutive quarters where the economy has slowed down, which by definition, we're in a recession now.
For him to be in this type of denial...
Simply demonstrates that they don't want to be honest with us and they want to reshape the narrative so that those people that actually want to believe this Kool-Aid that they're being fed are going to just sit back and say, oh, OK, well, Joe Biden says it's not so bad.
I find it very hard to believe that anybody following politics, Republican, Democrat, independent or otherwise, is going to buy into this.
And particularly Democrats who who buy into it are simply lying to themselves.
Because it's a defensive posture now.
Like, well, we have to defend what we've created.
We got this guy in the White House somehow, some way, and now we've got to stand our ground.
But it ends up becoming so disingenuous.
Here we are now with very few...
He's basically gotten rid of a lot of our petroleum reserve, which is used for wartime, which he basically implied we were on the cusp of.
And the elections are right around the corner in, what, 30-something days here or less.
Literally a month away, and I don't see any relief coming to any of the voters.
So keep in mind, a lot of the American public doesn't vote, but the voters are paying attention.
So they either want to hold their ground and keep their Democratic position, and they want to make sure that they have power, because this is all about power, or they're going to be honest with themselves and say, this isn't for the good of the country, and they're going to vote Democrats out of office.
There is no benefit right now for any Democrat and the American people.
Absolutely. And you mentioned the petroleum.
Joe Biden, you know, he's been in this kind of contentious relationship with the Saudis.
Biden's restricted oil production here, yet he's begging the Saudis for oil.
So he's not against oil, period.
He's just against American oil.
So, Jesse, Biden's driving up gas prices, hitting American workers where it hurts.
And so why do you think that he's continuing to do this even when he has an election coming up?
You know, it's pushing their agenda.
We've seen in every state that is blue that they want to convert to electric vehicles.
First it was California, now we're seeing New York follow.
And we consistently hear the Democrats in office, the leadership essentially, talk about getting us off of petroleum, that this is unhealthy for the environment, that this is the opportunity for us to wean ourselves off of foreign oil independence.
What they're trying to do again is reshape the narrative.
Number one, they're not addressing the mere fact that most of these electric vehicles, those batteries, what is it, 75% or so, give or take, are coming from China.
They don't look at the mere fact that it caused an environmental wrecking hole on any area where the minerals that are mined for these batteries It's taking place.
To suggest that it is less damaging to the environment than fossil fuels is actually flagrantly dishonest.
We have no way of even disposing of these batteries.
They've only been out there less than 10 years, so many of them will last 10 years.
Where will these things get disposed of?
uh... they're also being very dishonest about how effective and efficient most of our petroleum uh... run vehicles are gasoline run vehicles have become where we have lower rates of pollution that we've ever seen in modern history but yet california thinks it's going to change what's going on in china and india by merely sticking everybody in an electric vehicle so dot only to suggestion i can say is is that this is promoting their agenda
Now, you know, I've never been much of a conspiracy theorist, but when you start unraveling the roots of communism, it's all about, again, a commune and having people live simply and having the government control their aspect of life.
Well, if you're going to stick everybody in an electric vehicle, which the majority of Americans aren't going to be able to afford, you are now taking away their ability to transport themselves, participate in the economy, participate in the markets.
I just don't see a win for this with even, you know, the most hard-nosed Democrat.
When they know that economic prosperity is the desire and goal of every single family.
These electric vehicles are ridiculously expensive.
They're not healthy for the environment.
They're not going to be conducive with the electric grid in California, let alone a hurricane down in Florida where we saw them getting on fire.
So when you ask me, what is he thinking?
What is his goal? I can't even answer that because logically it doesn't make any sense other than It's promoting that Green New Deal, which is going to attack billions of dollars in our economy, cause a record rate of job loss, because the petroleum industry itself, from everything from our plastics to much of our facilities to our heating and our air conditioning, everything is revolving around Oil and petroleum products.
So, you know, asking me what their goal is, the only thing I can say is to promote this far-left green agenda, and it just doesn't seem like Americans come out ahead in this.
Yeah, no, that is definitely their goal, and it's scary.
But I want to ask you a little bit about his gun control plan, because it seems like, you know, they've kind of been continually trying to capitalize on any tragedy in order to bring about some kind of change when it comes to gun control.
So Biden recently talked about his assault weapons ban, and The Blaze posted a segment of the exchange in which Biden talked about being in a situation where we finally have action on guns.
And Joe Biden says his push against assault weapons is not a joke.
So do you think that they are going to succeed in kind of pulling back our Second Amendment rights?
I don't think they'll succeed because the Supreme Court has upheld several cases already where the right to bear arms is in the Constitution.
The purpose of the Supreme Court is to ensure that all laws are constitutional.
Just recently, Justice Thomas was the one that wrote the brief on the laws that were passed for New York to ensure that they had the capability of being able to defend themselves.
New York had created such a muck of regulation that somebody who wanted to own a gun legally was basically disarmed while wading through this ridiculous process of being able to have either concealed carry or gun ownership, legal gun ownership.
I don't see it going forward, but they will put the laws in place initially, and then it requires us going through the court system to get things corrected.
Out in California, the tax on ammunition or the restrictions on ammunition purchases has been another aspect of them going.
So what they do is they basically disarm people by not providing them any ammunition in order to defend themselves.
So I have a liberal sister and there was an illegal out here who had shot his three daughters and the caretaker at a church.
And the man had actually assaulted a police officer and should have been imprisoned and deported.
But because of the sanctuary laws out in California, neither had happened.
He was released. And he went out and killed his own family.
And my mother was talking with my liberal sister and her response was, well, and he went and bought a gun.
It's as if they know how to deflect to some other issue versus...
But he was here illegally.
You understand, if he was not here illegally, those daughters would still be alive today, number one.
Number two, I looked at her and I said, Michelle...
I'm a weapons expert, and I happen to be out in California, and you cannot see me even being able to purchase a weapon out here.
So when you're talking about somebody who illegally purchases it, all the regulations out there that you currently have in place are not going to stop the criminals from doing it.
But then what a liberal will do, instead of actually saying, oh, wow, you're right, oh, I hadn't thought of that, you know what they do?
They shut down the conversation.
Well, we shouldn't, well, let's not talk.
They're convinced that it's the weapons, not the human being, that's pulling the trigger that is at fault.
And when you get into that mindset, there's really no winning.
Because unless it's somebody who's open-minded about the position of weapon ownership, you know, there's a woman that's often used as an example who was killed by her boyfriend while she was waiting for her concealed carry.
And I believe she was in New York.
And it took her so long to get this approved by the local sheriff.
She was either in Jersey or New York State.
And she was waiting so long.
I mean, it should have happened within a reasonable period of time.
But she had been waiting months to get this concealed carry issued by the sheriff.
And he ended up killing her in her own driveway.
This is the type of criminal activity that is happening.
And if people would look at the data, there are thousands of shootings every year for people who have defended themselves who would otherwise have been dead.
And they don't want to talk about that.
They only want to talk about a mass shooting or they want to go after the one lunatic who wasn't a legal gun owner.
The majority of these folks who have done the mass shootings, I can't say 100%, but I would say 99 or 98.9% of them have been illegally obtained or somebody who should not, obviously, like with Hunter Biden, who had no legal right to own a gun because of his drug use history.
So the process would work if it's enforced.
And if we had a tough on crime policies, the Democrats want to chase the weapon instead of going after the criminals and keeping them incarcerated, they're releasing them.
You have a cashless bail system out there in New York now.
We know Latita James has done little to pursue the criminal problems going on and only pursued Donald Trump.
So you have these aggressive AGs that are just by default not protecting the very people that elected them into office.
And going after their agenda to make sure that they can water down our Constitution to a point where it's almost unrecognizable.
Right. Absolutely. Well, Jessie, thank you so much for your insight.
I appreciate it. Well, thank you so much for inviting me, Danielle.
It's a pleasure to join you anytime.
Well, that wraps up tonight's show.
Make sure to follow me on social media.
I'm at Danielle D'Souza Gill on all the platforms.
Truth Social, Getter, Telegram, Rumble, the best video platform, by the way, and all the traditional platforms, too, like Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, and the soon-to-be Elon Musk-owned Twitter.
If you want to stay updated, please go to my website, AmericanaByDanielle.com.
That's A-N-E-R-I-C-A-N-A, ByDanielle.com, to sign up for emails.
I'll see you tomorrow.
▲
Export Selection