All Episodes
Previous Next
March 6, 2023 - Dinesh D'Souza
50:07
PLAN OF ACTION Dinesh D’Souza Podcast Ep530
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
This episode is brought to you by my friend Rebecca Walzer, a financial expert who can help you protect your wealth. Book your free call with her team by going to friendofdinesh.com.
Coming up, I'll analyze Trump's agenda for 2024 as laid out in his CPAC speech. I'll examine the strange behavior of Biden and the Democrats in connection with the DC crime bill. Former Michigan gubernatorial candidate Tudor Dixon joins me. We're going to talk about her current work and future prospects. And I'll reveal a key distinction between conspiracy theories that emanate from the left as opposed to the right.
This is the Dinesh D'Souza Show.
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.
Not sure if you listened to the Trump speech at CPAC, the Conservative Political Action Committee.
Very interestingly, Trump was there, but not DeSantis.
And I guess this could be because DeSantis made the evaluation, hey listen, this is going to be a Trump-Trumpist crowd.
They're going to do a straw poll.
Trump is likely to win it.
So it's going to make me look bad if I sort of compete, so to speak, directly against In that forum.
Now, DeSantis was at the, I believe, the Club for Growth event.
He was in a couple of events.
Well, one here in Texas, another one at the Reagan Library in California.
Another Texas event, Debbie told me, was a big success for the Harris County GOP. They raised a record amount of money.
They had a lot of people there.
And I saw a picture of DeSantis at the Reagan Library.
He had about 1,300 people.
Now, all of this is a way of saying that DeSantis actually is able to draw a crowd.
He may not be able to draw a crowd.
In fact, I don't think he can, like Trump.
But it's not to say that he doesn't have the appeal to be able to pull people to come to hear.
And people do want to hear from DeSantis, as well as Trump.
Now, the Trump speeches, to me, are really fascinating because it's not just that they have that sort of Trump personality stamp, but it's also that Trump addresses politics in a completely different way than other politicians.
And so if a politician is talking about the border, they'll say, we need to take some steps to secure the border, and I have a five-point plan.
Trump will be like, well, you know, I was on a phone call with this guy who's from Border Patrol, and he told me this about, you know, there was a cartload of fentanyl coming over, and I asked him, who was in the cart?
And he's like, yeah, we got four guys who were hiding in the back.
So what happens with Trump is he goes into the Detail of it.
And he also gives you a real window into his own mind.
This is actually what's so rare in politics.
Trump will talk about how he's thinking about something and he does not hesitate to put it out there and do it in a kind of almost colloquial language.
I think this is partly why there's a group in the country that just adores Trump and is attached to Trump because they feel like no one else really levels with us About what's happening.
I may not even agree with Trump on everything, but this guy has a unique ability to show us non-political people what kind of decisions are made in the political world.
So Trump doesn't say things like, well, you know, we have an excellent opportunity to conclude some, make progress in our dealings with North Korea.
He goes, hey, listen, I was talking to Rocket Man.
You know, I gave him a copy of my CD. He asked me about this.
I told him, no way, I'm not going to do that.
You better back off on that one.
So again, this is the Trumpian tone.
I thought the speech was very good in the sense that it covered some things.
You know, Trump has been criticized by some people, including a little bit people sympathetic to him, saying, in effect, don't just focus, looking back.
It's not to say that you're wrong to look back, and it's not to say that you haven't been wronged.
But if you're always looking to 2020, then you're not going to be able to lay out what you're going to do in 2024.
Now, I think Trump's position on 2020 has always been the reason to look behind a 2020 is because we need some sort of a reckoning about what happened in order to move forward to 2024.
But in this speech, he focused on 2024.
He focused on the transformation of the Republican Party.
He basically says, hey, listen, now quoting him, we are never going back to the party of Paul Ryan, Karl Rove, and Jeb Bush.
And I think that's true.
The Republican Party, as it goes forward, may not be 100% a MAGA party, but it's going to be MAGA-fied.
It's going to be a party now infused with a MAGA spirit and And the kind of old establishment approach, I think, is, even though the establishment is alive, the establishment approach is pretty much done for.
Trump also talked about the fact that, I like this, he goes, I'm your warrior, I'm your justice, and for those who have been wronged and betrayed, I am your retribution, I will totally obliterate the deep state.
This is what people want to hear, that Trump has sort of learned that he didn't do it the last time.
He might have underestimated it, but now I don't think he underestimates it.
I think he understands the magnitude of the problem.
By the way, at the end of the event, they have a poll And apparently it's 62% Trump to 20% DeSantis.
Not a representative sample of the country, not a representative sample of Republicans, but certainly a representative sample of the people at CPAC. And apparently Carrie Lake is running pretty well in terms of what the CPAC crowd thinks would be a good VP nominee for Trump.
And so overall, I think the Trump appearance at CPAC did well for him.
He did a good job in laying out some key things that he will do.
As the campaign pushes forward into the latter part of 2023 and then, of course, election year 2024.
Just when you thought it couldn't get any better, Mike Lindell and MyPillow are launching MyPillow 2.0.
When Mike invented MyPillow, it had everything you could want in a pillow.
But now, nearly 20 years later, Mike has discovered a new technology that makes MyPillow even better.
The MyPillow 2.0 has the patented adjustable fill of the original MyPillow, but now, with the brand new fabric that is made with a temperature-regulating thread, making the MyPillow 2.0 the softest, smoothest, and coolest pillow, You'll ever own.
Say goodbye to tossing and turning, flipping your pillow over in the middle of the night.
More great news on the MyPillow 2.0 front.
Buy one, get one free.
And this offer, of course, with promo code Dinesh.
The MyPillow 2.0 is machine washable and dryable.
It's made in the USA. Comes with a 10-year warranty and a 60-day money-back guarantee.
Debbie and I love ours.
Go ahead and get yours.
Call 800-876-0227, that number 800-876-0227, or go to MyPillow.com.
Don't forget to use the promo code DINESH. Do you remember when the Hillary Clinton campaign Feeding the idea that he's a Russian agent.
So what makes that whole operation so deceptive is that she planted the story and then pretended like there was an independent investigation having nothing to do with her, and she was merely referring to it.
This all came to my mind because emails obtained by the GOP leadership in the House show that Anthony Fauci, Dr.
Fauci, did exactly the same thing.
Now, In April 17, 2020, here's Fauci talking.
There was a study recently, he says, where a group of highly qualified evolutionary virologists looked at the sequences in bats as they evolve and the mutations that it took to get to the point where it now is totally consistent with the jump of a species from an animal to a human species.
Then he goes on to say, so the paper will be available.
I don't have the authors right now, but we can make it available to you.
He's talking about the fact that there's a paper that disputes the lab leak theory of the origins of COVID and suggests an animal to human or a natural origin.
But notice Fauci's language.
He basically goes, there's this paper out there.
I don't really know who wrote it.
But you know what? I can get it and give it to you guys.
Turns out that this paper, Fauci knows exactly who wrote it.
Why? Because he put him up to it.
He knows exactly about the paper.
Why? Because he's the one who not only suggested the paper, but when the paper was drafted, he reviewed a draft of that paper before it was published.
And after changes were made to the paper, he reviewed the final draft.
So this is a Fauci-generated, or at least partly Fauci-generated paper.
Apparently there was another guy involved, a guy who subsequently became the head of the World Health Organization Science Department.
So chief scientist for the World Health Organization.
Fauci and this other guy cooked up this paper.
Now, why did they cook it up?
They cooked it up because they were facing criticism that they were not looking properly at the origins of COVID. And so what Fauci wants to do is shut down the idea that COVID might have had a lab leak, might have originated from the Wuhan lab.
The House happily now has chapter and verse on this.
In fact, this paper we're talking about was written four days after Fauci.
The NIH boss, Francis Collins, they have a phone call with these top virologists to talk about this lab leak theory.
And some of these guys think that there may have been a lab leak.
But you can see what happens is that Fauci not only doesn't want that to be stressed, so he kind of prods these guys to go into a different direction to emphasize the natural origin.
And guess what? The moment that they do this in this paper, there's money from the federal government now flowing in their direction.
In other words, I wouldn't necessarily call it a bribe, because typically a bribe is given beforehand.
Here is the money. Now you do this.
But let's call it a reward.
You do what I say, and guess what?
We have ways to thank you for the work you're doing in supporting our position.
So all of this now raises the interesting question, why would Fauci do this?
Why is it so important for Fauci for COVID not to have come out of a lab?
And the answer, I think, is pretty obvious.
It's because Fauci has been supporting, through the U.S. government, gain-of-function research in America And when, of course, there were restrictions placed on gain-of-function research in America, essentially farming out that research to China and perhaps to other places like Ukraine and elsewhere.
So Fauci knows they've been doing this.
He doesn't want to be held responsible for helping to subsidize a global pandemic that's killed, what, several million people.
And so Fauci goes, listen, let's head this off at the pass.
Let's create some...
It's not that he's creating bogus academic research, but he's steering the academic research.
And what's more important, he's not divulging his role in doing it.
It's one thing if he said, hey, listen, I'm a strong believer in the natural origins theory.
I told these four virologists to write about it.
No, he acts like... This paper just came out.
Very interesting. I don't really know all the details.
I don't know all the people who wrote it, but they're some of the world's most respected virologists.
So you can see here what a little snake this Fauci character is.
Debbie's like, isn't this illegal?
Isn't what he's doing illegal? I don't know if it's illegal, but it's certainly sneaky.
It's certainly deceptive.
It's certainly immoral.
When most companies are raising prices because of inflation, our friends at MD Hearing are cutting back prices.
That's right. MD Hearing just made their Neo rechargeable digital hearing aids only $149.99 each when you buy a pair.
That's $300 for a pair of hearing aids.
Plus, they are rechargeable with battery life that lasts up to 30 hours.
That's over 90% less than clinic hearing aids.
And the new NEO model is MD Hearing's smallest hearing aid ever.
It fits inside your ear. No one will even know it's there.
MD Hearing was founded by an ENT surgeon who saw how many of his patients needed hearing aids but couldn't afford them.
He made it his mission to develop a quality hearing aid that anyone could afford.
My mother-in-law's been using MDHearing for a while.
She loves them. In fact, she got her new pair while we were visiting.
We were amazed at how she could hear us so well.
So if you want MDHearing's smallest hearing aid ever, go to mdhearing.com.
Use promo code Dinesh to get their new buy one, get one.
$149.99 each offer when you buy a pair.
Plus, they're adding a free extra charging case, $100 value, just for listeners of the Dinesh D'Souza podcast.
That's mdhearing.com, promo code Dinesh.
Washington, D.C. was pushing forward a revision of the old criminal code governing the District of Columbia.
And because Democrats and left-wing Democrats dominate Washington, D.C., as they do so many other cities, this update of the criminal code was essentially weakening And so, for example, it reduced the maximum sentences that were in the old code.
It eliminated nearly all mandatory minimum sentences.
Like, if you do X, you must get at least six months, or you must get at least a year.
Those were eliminated.
And they expanded the rights of criminals.
So what's new? This is really what the left does.
This is what Democrats do.
And it doesn't seem to matter to them that the crime rate in the cities are high or are soaring.
They're like, this is who we are.
This is what we do. We are on the side of the criminals.
We're going to make life easier for them.
We're going to make their hardship less.
And so...
The mayor, Muriel Bowser, who basically goes, you guys are going too far.
I'm going to veto this new criminal code.
Turns out the left-wing D.C. City Council overrode her veto.
So this was about to be the new code for Washington, D.C. But guess what?
Washington D.C., according to the law, is under Congress, is under the federal government.
So even though the Democrats, you know, talk about home rule, the Washington D.C. needs to make its own decisions to govern itself, the simple truth of it is that Congress has every right to pass laws that can, that not only affect Washington D.C., but can override decisions made by the city council.
It turns out that there is a majority, both in the House and the Senate, To kill this DC criminal code update.
In other words, to defeat it.
But of course, normally, if Congress passes a law to defeat the DC criminal code, Biden could then veto that law.
And if he vetoed that law, it would not pass because, of course, you need a supermajority to override a presidential veto.
But in a big surprise move, Biden has said that he will sign the law.
He said that, look, I support home rule for D.C., but on the other hand, I don't like what's in this bill, this weakening of anti-crime requirements.
And the Democrats, the progressive Democrats, are really kind of taken by surprise and also sort of angry because 170 or so Democrats voted in Against the law, the law that overrides the new DC criminal code.
And these Democrats go, we thought we were voting with Biden.
We thought it was the position of Biden that whatever DC decides, like it or not, should be the way that DC is governed.
But now Biden has sort of double-crossed us.
I mean, here's AOC. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
She goes, You had the D.C. Council on the one hand, and yeah, they are elected, but you also have the mayor on the other side, and she's elected too.
And so, this is not a simple matter of who's elected and who's not.
I guess what AOC is saying is that nevertheless, the That the D.C. City Council was able to assemble the votes to override Mayor Muriel Bowser's veto.
And so there you go. That's settled.
That's what D.C. decided collectively through its process.
And so the federal government should butt out.
But as I mentioned, the federal government has the legal power to do this.
So, whether or not you think that, in principle, D.C. should have the final say, the truth of it is D.C. does not have the final say.
Now, the intriguing question here is, what happened here?
Is this a case where somehow Biden, you know, didn't really know what he was doing and decided to side with Republicans and side with some moderate Democrats who are very unhappy about this new D.C. criminal code?
And one political strategist attempting to make sense of all this said, look, while Biden normally goes along with the progressive Democrats, in this case, you can answer, you can explain his behavior in two words.
Lori Lightfoot.
Crime in Chicago is rampant.
Things were going from bad to worse.
Lori Lightfoot thought, that's okay.
We're a heavily Democratic city.
We have a bunch of progressives running the city.
A lot of progressive voters.
They're not going to mind.
They like living in filth.
They like living in crime.
They're going to... I'm gonna get another term really easily.
And when this 10-man race, the votes were counted.
Turns out Lori Lightfoot was in third place.
So now there's gonna be a runoff, but she's not gonna be part of it.
So it looks like the Democrats, and particularly moderate Democrats in places like Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, other places are saying, listen, we don't wanna be the party that is actively promoting crime.
Crime may be something to be endured, But it's not something to be subsidized or boasted about.
And so Biden decided, I think, not because Biden has seen the light, or Biden is amenable to rational argument, but out of political fear, Biden decided, in this case, I'm going to go along with the Republicans.
Here's how to make aches and pains a thing of the past.
Debbie and I started taking Relief Factor a couple of years ago.
The difference we've seen in our joints, nothing short of amazing.
Aches and pains are gone thanks to this 100% drug-free solution called Relief Factor.
Relief Factor works by supporting your body's fighting against inflammation.
That's the source of aches and pains.
The vast majority of people who try Relief Factor become regular customers.
They order more because it works for them.
Debbie's been able to do the exercises that for a while she wasn't able to do.
So Relief Factor has been a real game changer for her, her aunt, other members of our family, Brian and Mike here in the studio and for many other people.
You too can benefit. Try it for yourself.
Order the three-week quick start for the discounted price of just $19.95.
Go to relieffactor.com or call the new number 800-4-RELIEF. Guys, I'd like to welcome a new guest to the podcast, Tudor Dixon. You'll remember Tudor Dixon.
She ran for governor of Michigan the last time around.
She's someone who's built a career in Michigan's steel industry.
By the way, she's also a breast cancer survivor, a working mom of four girls.
You can follow her at Twitter, at Tudor Dixon, T-U-D-O-R, Dixon.
And Tudor, welcome to the podcast.
Great to have you.
I want to start by asking you to clarify a mystery as I've been following, you know, Gretchen Whitmer over the last few years, admittedly watching Michigan from the outside.
I just don't understand the appeal of this woman.
She seems to have all these horrific policies.
In fact, you made very effective critiques of them.
Does she have a sort of secret cadre of enthusiasts in Michigan?
Is Michigan more to the left than the rest of us suspect?
What's your thought about how Gretchen Whitmer even manages to survive, given her destructive policies?
Sure. Well, I think that we have to remember that Michigan is a part of the obsession for Democrats.
They're looking at Michigan as they can take it over.
And we saw that very strongly in 22.
They have a system on the ground here.
So no, I don't think it is that she has some overwhelming appeal.
She's certainly not drawing big crowds.
But I think that is where Republicans are sometimes misled by what our success will be, is that We are playing to crowds.
We are campaigning.
We're out there actually talking to people.
And you'll notice that the Democrats aren't.
When you ask yourself, well, why is that?
They have this massive ground game.
And it's not just that they're going door to door.
When we talk about a ground game, they're getting into your social media.
They're getting into your phone.
They're just very effective getting those messages out to people that were unsuspecting, people who are not necessarily following politics suddenly have this in their telephone and they're looking at it and they're going, oh, well, my cell phone is telling me to vote for this person, I better get out there and do that.
And that's effective.
We are not as effective on the Republican side at doing that.
I mean, it seems that what you're saying, and this gets me to the re-election of Rona McDaniel, is that the Republican party needs to do things differently than it did in 2020 or 2022.
And I think part of what you're saying is to recognize that the Democrats have built this Thank you.
if ballot harvesting is allowed by law, that Republicans should realize, hey, listen, we've got to play by the rules as they exist.
You might in some fanciful world want to have one election day, everybody shows up, paper ballots.
But whether or not you think that's the ideal, if your legislature hasn't passed that law in Michigan, then play by the rules of the game as they exist now.
Do you agree with that? Right.
And that has been extremely hard to convince some people, especially even now.
When I go around, I'll still talk to groups and they'll say to me, well, we've got to change this.
We've got to make sure it's on one day.
And I say, look, that's not what it is right now.
So we have to go to the very edge, just like they are going to the very edge and make sure that what we're doing is within the law.
But we're going to that extreme of going to people's stores, making sure that we are sending out the absentee ballot applications like they are.
And right now I have Republicans who will say to me, well, I think that's not moral.
And I'm like, but it's legal.
You have to understand that if it's legal and they're doing it, we have to be playing at the same game.
I'll say to them, I hear a lot of you saying, well, we're going to go to the grocery store and ask people if they're Republicans.
This is a data game.
It is also a mail-in ballot game.
It is an early voting game.
We have to be playing that game.
We don't want to be going into a drone war with bows and arrows.
We want to make sure that we have the same weapons that the Democrats have and that we are playing on a level playing field.
I mean, when I think, for example, about what happened in Arizona and kind of leaving aside whether there was any hanky-panky, it seems that Republicans in some ways shot themselves in the foot because they were like, listen, everybody show up to vote on Election Day.
So if, whether intentional or unintentional, there are glitches on Election Day, well, who's that going to hurt?
The people who are voting on that day, if Republicans had done early voting, they'd have a much better chance of having done better.
And these elections were so close that you can easily see them tipping the other way under those circumstances.
Let's turn to some...
Go ahead. I think you have to also remember that The Democrats are looking at this as a business and they're saying, okay, is it feasible to say everybody's going to remember on election day?
People aren't going to get sick.
There's not going to be an emergency at home.
You never know what's going to happen if you limit yourself to one day.
So they are not limiting themselves to one day.
In Michigan now, I think it's at least nine days of early voting that was just passed in the last election.
And so you have to think about this.
They are making sure that they are contacting that voter constantly.
They're getting in, like I said, they're in their cell phones.
They're targeting them with ads.
They're making sure they're getting mailings to their house.
They're also knocking on their door.
They're saying, we know you got your ballot this day.
Have you turned it in? They are counting ballots.
We are looking to bring voters to the table and we're doing it the wrong way.
We have these big rallies and people go, oh my goodness, you know, this gubernatorial candidate had a rally with 1500 people.
Well, guess what? That same day, the Democrats, they targeted 4 million.
So we have to be able to do it the same way.
Wow. That's really eye-opening.
Is it also the case that the Democrats are using paid operatives, whereas Republicans rely on volunteers?
Is that a factor?
In other words, there needs to just be a lot more, as you say, the business of politics and the business of electioneering, as opposed to kind of well-meaning citizens who kind of show up and do their part.
It's not that we don't need that, but we might also need the other, right?
Absolutely. I like to say that you've got a lot of Republicans that are out there talking and going on television and making a big deal out of elections, whereas on the Democrat side, you have these nameless, faceless organizations that hire people.
They have people on university campuses.
They have people in nursing homes.
They have people in communities, community organizing.
These are not volunteers, as you said.
These are paid people, and this is the money that we don't really see.
So as much money as we see in elections, We're not necessarily understanding how much money is going into these nameless, faceless organizations.
They don't want to be famous.
They don't want to have a big name attached to them.
They don't actually want people to know what they're doing.
They want to be able to be out there running the business of elections.
It's much different. Very scary.
All right, let's take a pause. When we come back, let's talk about some issues in Michigan back with Tudor Dixon.
Thanks to your support, Patriot Mobile has emerged as one of the leaders in the parallel economy and they've got big news.
Patriot Mobile now offers service with all three major networks.
That means if you're with the big three, like the service, but don't like the values, you can access them with Patriot Mobile.
Patriot Mobile also offers a performance guarantee.
If you're not happy with your coverage, you can switch.
Patriot Mobile is America's only Christian conservative wireless provider.
It offers nationwide coverage on the best 4G and 5G networks, so you get the same great service while supporting a company that fights to preserve our God-given rights and freedoms.
This new year resolved to stop supporting companies that don't align with your values.
Patriot Mobile's 100% US-based customer service team makes switching easy.
Just go to patriotmobile.com.
That's patriotmobile.com slash Dinesh or call them at 878-PATRIOT. Get free activation today with the offer code Dinesh.
That's patriotmobile.com slash Dinesh or call the number 878-PATRIOT. I'm back with Tudor Dixon, former GOP candidate for governor of Michigan.
You can follow her at Twitter, at Tudor Dixon.
Tudor, let's talk about some of the issues in Michigan.
It seems like the state has been enduring this power outage which has gone on now for several days.
I want to talk about Gretchen Whitmer's leadership, or maybe a lack of leadership, a better term, in the way that she's addressing this and also the way she's addressing it in terms of the current budget.
Talk about that.
Yeah, sure. So first of all, we have had a power outage now.
In some areas, they had power out for 11 days.
It came on for about 30 minutes, went back out because we've had so many snowstorms.
But What really, what does this say about the state in general and the state of infrastructure?
Because we can't get businesses to come to the state of Michigan.
This has been a longstanding problem with economic development.
Well, here you go. Here's the reason why, is if you have unreliable energy, you cannot possibly bring a manufacturing plant to a state.
That has unreliable energy.
But instead of putting money into infrastructure for energy, her latest budget came out with, I think, 10 million just for electric vehicle fleet for the state of Michigan to create a new fleet for the state of Michigan that is all electric vehicles.
We have all kinds of subsidies in there for electric vehicles.
Ways to create new charging stations, but the actual critical infrastructure of getting power to these charging stations, of getting power to this fleet of state vehicles, it's broken down, it's not working.
And the question is, in this timeframe, Where is Gretchen Whitmer?
Because she came out the first day and she said, oh, I'm out here with these crews.
But since then, we believe that she's been gone from the state for quite a few days.
We don't have confirmation on that.
There has been no response from her office as to where exactly she is.
But like Gavin Newsom, in the middle of a crisis in the state, I mean, let's face it, we're in the 30s.
People have been in their homes for days with no heat.
And she's left the state potentially.
This is pretty shocking stuff that we're looking at.
It's... I mean, I keep reading in the New York Review of Books and elsewhere all these articles about the magnificence of these electric vehicles.
But I always say to myself, if the product is so good, you wouldn't need to subsidize it so heavily.
It would actually compete in the market.
People would go, oh, wow, my electric car is cheaper.
It's better. It runs. So I don't need to be sold on it.
I don't need the government to be giving money to these companies.
So isn't the fact that all these subsidies are always proposed...
Actually, an indication that these things don't work that well, that they're more expensive.
That's why you need the government to fund them.
Government tends to fund things that don't work.
It's such a strange business decision because most of the time a company that says, well, I don't know how consumers will actually decide to, whether or not they will decide to buy this product...
We're going to slowly move into transitioning and see if customers will buy.
But now we have the government mandating it.
So even when I've talked to some of the automotive companies about this, they've said, well, what can we do?
California has come out and said this is a mandate.
And so we must change over our entire fleet of cars to electric vehicles.
And to do that, we have to have the government pay for it.
So now go to the next step.
Gretchen Whitmer has just agreed to give almost two billion dollars of Michigan taxpayer money to a Chinese company who is associated with Ford but still owned by the Chinese with the influence of the Chinese Communist Party coming right here to the heart of the country building a manufacturing plant with our money.
That's how extreme this obsession with electric vehicles has gone to a country where we know there's human rights offenses We know that this is not the easiest way to mine these materials needed for these batteries.
We know that this is not environmentally friendly, nor is it friendly to the children who are digging in these mines.
And yet, we're taking $2 billion of Michigan taxpayer money to give to a Chinese corporation to build a plant right in the heart of the country.
How do you explain, Tudor, the radicalism of the left on issues like climate change, but also, you know, the DEI, the diversity, equity, inclusion business, abortion?
I'm assuming that the Michigan voter is somewhere in the middle saying something like, hey, listen, there may be regrettable times when an abortion is needed, but we're not saying abortion is a good thing.
Or conversely, of course, we should debate issues of slavery and segregation, but we don't want to have a single ideological battering ram, which is basically used as an indoctrination vehicle on students.
And yet the Democrats appear to have dug into these things.
Why is it in their interest to pursue radical politics when it would seem that the majority of people, not just in Michigan, but around the country, are really not on that fringe?
Well, I think they believe that this is something that most people are, and if they're not, they can force you to be.
So if you look at her latest, if you look at Gretchen Whitmer's latest budget, almost everybody Budget ends in a line or begins in a line that says nothing in this budget can affect the movement of DEI. We want to make sure that DEI is safe.
You cannot try to defund DEI. It has to be available.
But I think that it was great to see Bernie Sanders try to talk about equity the other day.
I don't know if you saw this, but he was asked, what is the difference between equity and equality?
And he kind of said, I don't really know.
I guess equity is...
That everybody gets the same thing, equal outcomes, and equality is equal opportunity.
And they said, well, what side of it are you on?
And he said, well, I like equal opportunity.
Well, hey, that's the same thing we're saying.
Is this the fact that Democrats don't actually know what they're talking about?
And here they are putting this inside of all of our schools, inside of all of our government offices, saying everybody has to have the same outcome.
Well, the same outcome is that everybody has an equally poor outcome.
Equal opportunity means that there will be different levels, but everybody has the opportunity to get to that high level.
I mean, I watched that clip. I think it was with Bill Maher.
And I think that Bernie Sanders was caught by surprise because it looked like his eyes kind of widened.
He looked left and right. And then I think, I actually think he's probably on the equity side, but he didn't want to say that.
He didn't want to come out against equality of opportunity.
So he goes, no, I'm on the equality side.
So I think this is just a little indication that the left is in a They've invented this new term to bamboozle people.
They mean one thing, but they want you to think in your mind another thing.
But Tudor Dixon, we need people like you to unmask all this nonsense.
I'm really glad you're doing what you're doing.
Keep it up. I know you have a great future in politics.
Thanks so much for joining me on the podcast.
Absolutely. Thank you for having me.
This year, we can all use a fresh start.
Now, the phrase literally means an opportunity to begin something again.
You know you need a fresh start in your eating habits, right?
How many times last year did you say to yourself, hey, I need to start eating better?
Eating the right amount, the proper amount, the recommended amount of fruits and veggies every day is almost impossible.
Here's a more convenient way for you to make that fresh start with Balance of Nature.
Balance of Nature is sourced from 31 whole fruits and vegetables.
You get maximum nutrition with their star product.
Here we go. Fruits and veggies in a capsule.
Debbie and I take them every day.
You should also, and right now, take advantage of Balance of Nature's New Year's offer.
Get $25 off plus free fiber and spice with your first preferred order of fruits and veggies when you use discount code AMERICA. The offer can end at any time, so act now.
Call 800-246-8751.
That's 800-246-8751.
Or go to balanceofnature.com.
Use discount code AMERICA. I had a thought I wanted to share with you about conspiracy theories.
Now, whenever the left talks about conspiracy theories, the underlying assumption is that there are no conspiracies because the derision that accompanies the phrase, well, these Republicans are peddling conspiracy theories.
Well, if conspiracies were going on all over the place, then having a conspiracy theory—a theory is nothing more than a framework for understanding an ongoing conspiracy—would carry no derision at all.
In fact, a conspiracy theory would be nothing more than an attempt to explain conspiratorial facts.
But what we're seeing is not only that one after the other, these conspiracy theories or something that starts out as a conspiracy theory ends up being true.
So you say, for example, that Twitter is running algorithms to censor people.
Oh, it's a conspiracy theory.
Now you get behind the files, the Twitter files, you look.
Well, Twitter's been running algorithms, and Twitter's been actively suppressing political dissidents, people who are on the other side, so it's no longer a conspiracy theory.
It's now an actual description of reality.
Similarly, the lab leak.
Conspiracy theory! NPR, for example, did a headline calling this an unsupported conspiracy theory.
Well, as it turns out now, it's not so unsupported.
In fact, it's believed by the Biden Energy Department.
In fact, it was affirmed by Christopher Wray, the head of the FBI. So suddenly, it's not a conspiracy theory.
It is a real possibility that warrants further investigation.
Well, Scott Adams makes a point where he says that there are conspiracy theories that seem to germinate on the left and on the right, but there's a key difference.
He goes, the conspiracy theories that come from the right tend to develop sort of organically.
There's something that is not properly explained, doesn't really make sense.
And so you have a theory that...
He's like, well, maybe this came out of the World Economic Forum, or maybe the World Economic Forum is talking to the UN, which is talking to the WHO. So these are organic populist attempts to make sense of things that don't seem to make sense.
He says, but these organic theories are genuine beliefs.
People really think that this is what happened.
He goes, the difference with the left is that their conspiracy theories are orchestrated hoaxes.
First of all, they are deliberately crafted.
Think, for example, about Jussie Smollett.
He orchestrated that.
Think, for example, about the Hillary campaign and the Russia collusion hoax.
They concocted that.
They planted it.
Think of what may have happened in Michigan with regard to the Whitmer kidnapping.
This is a case where the FBI was so intimately involved with the so-called kidnapping operation that it doesn't seem an exaggeration to say that they played a key role.
They moved the plot forward.
If they didn't come up with it in the first place, it would not have happened without them.
So the difference between the right and the left is that the right can be mistaken.
I have a theory. Maybe it turns out to be wrong.
But the left is knowingly So, in other words, the deception is really coming from the left and not from the right.
Another, I think, relevant difference that I would add to this is that when the right discovers that something is false, they generally drop it.
They have a theory.
Turns out that's not what happened.
And you're like, oh, okay, well, I guess the other explanation makes more sense of the facts.
But with the left, that's not the case.
They will come up with a theory, a conspiracy theory.
Let's say, for example, the theory that Trump at Charlottesville called the Nazis, quote, very fine people.
You just have to go to the tape to see he didn't do that.
He said, I'm paraphrasing now, I unequivocally condemn these extremists and Nazis and those kinds of people.
But he goes, but in terms of the people showing up at the event, there are some very fine people on both sides.
So he's not referring to the Nazis.
He's referring to non-Nazis.
But see, even though the left knows this, they have every opportunity, this happened years ago, to go back to the tape.
They don't give up. They dig in.
They promulgate a lie even though they know it to be a lie.
And the third and final point I'll make is that very often the conspiracy theories on the right Are theories that arise out of a skepticism toward government.
So, conservatives generally believe that government is not to be trusted.
And so, that's kind of where their conspiracy theories come out, a kind of natural suspicion of government.
But liberals are the opposite.
They have huge faith in government.
And so, typically what they do is they adopt...
Government-sponsored conspiracy theories that usually come with the backing of so-called experts.
So you have the government knowingly peddling a lie.
And the lie could be anything from, we have nothing to do with the explosion at the Nord Stream pipeline.
Or it could be that if you take the vaccine, you're not going to be able to transmit the virus.
Basically, if the government is saying it, even if it's false, even if it is false, A conspiracy theory, a conspiracy theory here meaning a distortion of the facts.
Nevertheless, the left will push it and they will push it.
Why? Because it's a theory originating from their favorite source, namely the federal government.
Last time I talked about a number of prominent scientists over the past 50 years saying why they didn't like the idea of a Big Bang.
They don't like the idea of the universe having an origin.
And one of them said the reason for that is we don't want to get into the, quote, problem of Genesis.
In other words, we don't want to get into the Bible.
We don't want to get into miracles.
We don't want to get into the idea of a supernatural creator.
And here we have a clue that something is going on inside of science that needs to be brought out and made explicit.
And that is that modern science is based upon, I will call it, naturalistic and materialistic assumptions.
I want to highlight these three words, naturalistic, materialistic, and assumption.
Why? Because naturalism, by the way, refers to the idea that the natural universe, nature, is all there is.
And you cannot get science is not willing to go beyond nature.
It stays inside of nature.
Number two, The materialist assumption is that the universe is material.
We're not talking about materialism in the sense of like being obsessed with money or shopping.
We're talking about materialism in the sense that everything is made out of material substances and there is nothing beyond that.
You can't infer immaterial or spiritual or transcendent entities beyond the material.
And then I highlight assumption because this is all a big assumption.
No one has ever proved, in fact, you can't prove that there are no spiritual entities, that there are no immaterial objects, and that the universe is solely made out of material stuff, or even that nature is all there is.
No one has even really attempted such a proof.
It's a starting point.
It's an assumption. Now, here is a bunch of scientists talking about this.
Doug Irwin, a paleobiologist at the Smithsonian, he goes, quote, One of the rules of science is...
No miracles allowed.
So there you go. What he's saying is that even if there is a miracle, and it's obvious it's a miracle, science has got to act like it couldn't be a miracle, we have to look for a naturalistic explanation.
I mean, I'll give an example. Let's say the space shuttle tomorrow sends back some new photographs, and you suddenly see a whole bunch of solar bodies, and they are stamped With the sign, let's just say in English, Yahweh made this.
Now, this would be as close as you could come to an obvious miracle.
There is no random way that this could happen.
This is far and away the most likely explanation is that God decided that finally He's going to, in a sense, come out, make His existence obvious.
Stamp his name on asteroids and planetary bodies.
But science would still go, no, we refuse to accept that.
We now need to look at how constellations of gas and so on must have created this very admittedly improbable, but nevertheless thoroughly naturalistic event.
So modern science, I guess what I'm saying, was designed to exclude a designer.
The idea of a supernatural creator is a priori.
A priori means at the outset, excluded from science.
Even empirical evidence of the kind, I just gave you an example of empirical evidence, you've got physical objects in the sky bearing the sign Yahweh made this, but that empirical evidence is flatly rejected.
It doesn't matter how strong that evidence is or how reliable, scientists acting in their professional capacity are obliged to ignore it.
Now, a scientist in his personal capacity may go, that's really interesting.
I'm going to have to think about that when I read my Bible tonight.
So that is a scientist acting as a normal human being.
But in terms of what they write in the journal Nature, in terms of how they discuss the issue scientifically with their colleagues, They are dug in to these materialistic and naturalistic assumptions.
So as I put it, I'm writing this now in What's So Great About Christianity, the position of modern science is not that no miracles are possible, but rather that no miracles are allowed.
Now, all of this seems kind of odd because science grew out of Christianity.
You think of Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Boyle.
Not only were those guys Christians, but they saw a compatibility.
Between the discoveries of nature and science and their commitment to the Bible and to God, they saw that in a way nature reflects the mathematical rationality of God.
But scientists today will accept that nature is orderly, nature is patterned, nature has laws, nature is in that sense mathematical, but they refuse to consider the source of the orderliness.
And this is partly because academia, and academia, of course, includes the scientific fields, physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, cosmology, and so on.
There's been a secularization of academia, a secularization of the disciplines.
And by the way, all of this has occurred In the last century and a half, you can sort of date the 1850s through the 1870s as when this process got started.
So it's been going now for over a century, but not more than that.
Before that, it was very common to have a clergyman or an Anglican divine or even a Catholic priest, and they were among the leading physicists and astronomers in the West.
So, what's happening now is that scientists are trying to explain the mysteries of the universe, which were once attributed to God, try to explain them entirely in a kind of naturalistic or scientific way.
I want to say, and I'll pick up this theme tomorrow, I don't have a problem with science operating in this way as long as it discloses that this is the province that it covers.
Hey, look, Dinesh.
Hey, look, ladies and gentlemen.
We cover naturalistic explanations.
If there are supernatural explanations, we're not saying they're wrong.
They simply fall outside the orbit of science.
If the scientists would kind of fess up and be more explicit about the assumptions hidden behind what they do, we would all, including science, be better off.
Subscribe to the Dinesh D'Souza podcast on Apple, Google, and Spotify.
▲
Export Selection