All Episodes
Previous Next
June 12, 2023 - Dinesh D'Souza
47:58
WHOOP-DE-DO Dinesh D’Souza Podcast Ep598
| 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.
Coming up, a new Trump indictment.
I'll review the substance of this indictment, arguing it's, well, really a big whoop-de-doo.
I'll debunk former Attorney General Bill Barr's assessment of the merits of the Biden DOJ case.
Activist Joey Lynn Maceros joins me.
We're going to talk about the vindictiveness of the Biden administration against its critics.
And I'll show how atheism is the opiate of the morally corrupt.
Hey, if you're listening on Apple, Google, or Spotify, or watching on Rumble, please subscribe to the podcast.
I'd appreciate it. This is the Dinesh D'Souza Show.
The times are crazy.
In a time of confusion, division, and lies, we need a brave voice of reason, understanding, and truth.
This is the Dinesh D'Souza Podcast.
Donald Trump is now facing his second indictment.
The first one, of course, the Bragg indictment in New York.
This indictment is a federal indictment, not a state indictment.
It's brought through the auspices of the special counsel and it's 37 federal counts.
Now, I have a lot to say about all this and I, in fact, printed out the indictment.
It was about 50 pages long.
I've started reading it.
I'm not going to go into the details of the indictment today because I want to read it more carefully.
But I do want to... I see a lot of commentators who go through the indictment and go, well, this is very disturbing, or this is very serious.
And the basic assumption that they're making is that everything in the indictment is true.
But let's remember that this is alleged.
Alleged by people who deserve no trust at all.
These are people who will massage words.
They will alter meanings.
They will take away what they say in the text through a footnote.
They will omit evidence that goes the other way.
They will collude together.
They're relying on the system itself.
In a sense, vindicating them even though there may be no merits whatsoever.
In other words, having no merits to a case doesn't stop these kinds of people.
So, when we read the indictment, we're going to take note of what it says and what it claims.
But in every case, these are claims.
This is what the DOJ is saying.
The very same DOJ that shows no interest in going after Biden for doing the same or worse, that pretends not to notice the massive Biden bribery scandal on an international scale that is now being documented by the House Oversight Committee.
So, these people are thoroughly untrustworthy and corrupt, both.
So, that's my starting point.
We shouldn't read this with a fake solemnity As you're dealing with honorable people who are making serious charges for which they have accumulated indisputable evidence.
We all remember the Mar-a-Lago raid, which was the raid over supposedly Trump's possession of classified documents.
And you might expect that this case is over Trump's possession of classified documents.
You might remember the image, and I use this as the thumbnail for today, with the DOJ sort of laying out in the open a series of documents which have the classified marking.
Of course, they blank out what the text of the document is, This became a kind of visual symbol of Trump supposedly either carelessly or willfully taking these documents.
But guess what? The one significant thing to note is that the case as filed is not about that.
Trump is not charged with possessing classified documents.
So then you have to ask, well, wait, wasn't that what the raid was all about?
So, it turns out that the raid was, it seems, the way to get into Trump's documents so that they could find other things that they could then charge him with.
And that is what seems to be going on here.
And I think this supports the, not only fear, but the suspicion that a lot of us have that they have already targeted the man and now they are looking for crimes that they can sort of throw at him.
And they don't care if these crimes have never been thrown at anybody else for doing the same thing.
They don't care that this is sort of a prosecution in search of a crime.
They've decided that it's justified to do this because evidently Trump is such a, well, threat.
To the political system, a threat to the left and the Democrats if he's re-elected.
And so what is Trump facing?
Well, he's facing these 37 federal counts, including, and this seems to be the key parts of it, willful retention of national defense information.
So this does come out of some of the classified documents that claim that Trump had national defense information.
Now, we also should note here that national defense here is a very wide umbrella.
Trump sends an email to Kim Jong-un.
There's nothing particularly sensitive about it, but hey, Hey, it's national defense information.
And so, again, there are hidden assumptions here that if something pertains to national defense, we should all freak out.
The country is gravely endangered.
First of all, this is national defense information that is sensitive according to you, according to your reading of the matter, which may not be anybody else's reading of the matter whatsoever.
Conspiracy to obstruct justice is nothing more than Trump negotiating back and forth about turning the documents back.
And this is a normal process that all presidents have engaged in.
By the way, let's note that Obama took classified documents, Bush took classified documents, Biden took classified documents.
So this is not exactly a unique practice on the part of Trump, but Trump is uniquely being targeted for it.
Trump himself said they took one charge and they made it 36 different times, which is, by the way, how they do these things.
And what I find really reprehensible, so Special Counsel Jack Smith says the following, quote,"...we have one set of laws in this country and they apply to everyone." Ha ha ha.
This is simply not true.
And the behavior of the Justice Department, of Merrick Garland, of Jack Smith himself, makes it obvious that it's not true." And when I come back in the next segment, I'll show that the very jubilation that's being expressed, well, widely across the left, but including among some prominent figures, people like Hillary Clinton, James Comey, Peter Strzok, and others, really shows the political vindictiveness that lies behind this second indictment.
The debt ceiling crisis has come to a head.
This administration is doing its best to force more government spending.
They have reached a settlement to get the deal done.
But for now, our national debt continues to skyrocket.
Well, how are you protecting your savings?
Times like these are when concerned savers like me turn to gold.
And I, like thousands of similar-minded people, buy my gold from Birch Gold.
Here's the easy way to do it.
Birch Gold will help you convert an existing IRA or 401k into an IRA in gold.
You don't pay a penny out of pocket.
As the BRICS group, Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, band together against the dollar, more and more central banks are diversifying.
You know what they're buying? Gold.
Follow their lead.
Get started by texting Dinesh to 989898 for your free information kit on gold.
There's no obligation, just information.
Birch Gold has an A-plus rating with the Better Business Bureau.
Thousands of happy customers.
Birch Gold can help protect your savings, too.
So get started. Text Dinesh to 989898.
Check out the obscene political vindictiveness of people celebrating this Trump second indictment.
Peter Strzok puts out a photo on social media with Trump in handcuffs.
This is the same Peter Strzok who texted Lisa Page to say, hey, listen, don't worry about Trump being elected because we have, quote, an insurance policy to stop it.
So, the naked political attack here is pretty obvious.
Hillary Clinton, of course, I think somewhat sarcastically, but also trying to raise money, puts out her line of merchandise, the website, and apparently she's trying to sell her hat, which goes, but her emails.
And her point being that, I guess she's being sarcastic.
Well, Trump supporters will try to defend what Trump did by appealing to Hillary's emails.
And Hillary's starting point appears to be that there was nothing there.
Now, that's not true.
And to have this odious Hillary Clinton gloating over this, again, it just is indicative of the way in which the left sort of launches these strikes.
And a certain part of me admires their boldness in doing it.
I would not have thought, and most Republicans don't think, that they would have the chutzpah to go after Trump on all these different levels on things that seem so ridiculous.
Oh, yeah, he paid off this porn star.
And, oh, he took papers that he should have given back and he didn't give them back in time.
Or here's James Comey.
And James Comey gives an interview where he basically says that in 2024, it can't be Trump, it has to be Biden.
Again, giving the idea that what these indictments are all about is preventing Trump from running again, or somehow, even if he does run again, wounding him so much that he won't be able to mount an effective campaign.
And then, of course, Comey sort of spills the beans by saying in the interview, in effect, that if Trump gets elected, he might do to us what we've been doing to him.
He doesn't put it that way.
He says Trump might try to extract political retribution, but that's just another way of saying that Trump may turn the same justice apparatus that has been mobilized against him in the other direction.
Glancing over the indictment, it's not that there are a few things there that I didn't know about that raise eyebrows.
And I think over the next couple of days, I will go into this stuff in more detail.
There's apparently something, there's an audio tape.
Trump is apparently talking to two visitors about a classified sort of U.S. attack plan on Iran.
And the document at that point is quite clearly unclassified.
So, Look, if Trump did that, that's reckless behavior.
It's not clear to me it's criminal behavior of any kind, but he shouldn't have done it.
But again, the big question is, did he do it?
What was the context in which he did it?
What did he actually reveal?
Did he just say, hey, we're making a plan for an attack on Iran?
And because there is a classified plan for doing that, as I call, quote, revealing a classified document, did he actually produce the document and show the document and go, here, look, by the way, take a look, guys, at the plans for the attack on Iran.
So, a lot of this hinges upon what it is that Trump actually did.
I also think that what's revealing here, Debbie and I were talking this morning about, you know, the strange sort of dog that has embarked here.
And the dog that has embarked here is the united GOP rising to the defense of Trump here and striking out back against the Biden regime.
I mean, why hasn't there been a single impeachment brought against anyone in the Biden administration?
I mean, there should be one against Biden.
There should be one against Mayorkas.
There should be one against Merrick Garland.
That's just to get started.
And it's true that people like Marjorie Taylor Greene have introduced these resolutions and introduced these bills, but they don't seem to be moving rapidly forward.
And I think that has to be put at the door of Kevin McCarthy.
Because it is the Republican weakness and indifference, the Republican looking away, the Republican desire to sort of duck all this, and in some cases, the almost covert glee of some Republicans that this is going on.
Why? Because they're running for president too, and they wouldn't mind it too much if Trump were either removed from the race or somehow disabled from being able to run an effective primary campaign.
So Chris Christie, for example, is now kind of saying basically that Trump is a bad guy and he's going to save the Republican Party.
Now, really, Debbie's just a spontaneous laughter.
But look, you know, polls have shown that there are 60% of Republicans.
This is, by the way, according to a CNN poll, who will not vote for Christie, quote, under any circumstances.
So the idea that these guys or, you know, even...
Asa Hutchinson, who basically has about the same chance of becoming president as me, and I'm not running.
In fact, not am I not running, I'm not even eligible.
And I have a better chance of making it than Asa Hutchinson.
But he calls on Trump to, quote, respect the office and end his campaign.
In other words, improve my chances of making it.
Which, by the way, even if Trump stepped aside, Asa, you're not going to make it.
Then there's Mike Pence.
And again, Mike Pence, another guy, I think basically decently motivated, but his own reframing of the issues now makes no sense.
He says that on January 6th, quote, Trump demanded I choose between him and our Constitution.
As if Trump came to Mike Pence and go, Mike, really, it's a clear choice.
It's me or the Constitution.
I think you should choose me.
That's not what Trump said at all.
That's not what... Trump wanted Pence to do.
That's not what anybody wanted Pence to do.
So, again, Pence is fabricating this stuff and fabricating a morality tale to make himself the hero.
I had to choose between Trump and the Constitution, and I chose the Constitution because I, after all, am a highly moral man.
So... Nikki Haley is not openly attacking Trump, but she basically does frame her candidacy in generational terms, kind of like, we need a new generation of leadership.
And there are going to be some people in the Republican Party who are, I've got to say, probably a little exhausted, probably open to this idea that we need fresh air.
But to me, the important point here is that if you give in to all this, You're saying nothing more than that the Republican Party doesn't just abandon its soldiers on the field, which it did on January 6th, but it's abandoning its general on the field, in this case, Trump.
And it shows that we're going to let the left know that they can do open season on us, and every time they pick out one, it's like You know, the cheetah is going to pick one from the herd and all the rest of the herd is going to flee in the relieved idea that, gee, it wasn't me.
It may be me next time, but hopefully it'll be somebody else other than me.
So this is the place that we're at, and it is time for us to strike back.
Otherwise, our vulnerability, our individual vulnerability, and our collective vulnerability will only increase.
If aches and pains are your problem, Relief Factor is your solution.
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 totally gone thanks to this 100% drug-free solution called Relief Factor.
How does it work? It supports your body's fight against inflammation that's the source of aches and pains.
The vast majority of people who try Relief Factor order more because it works for them.
Debbie found it works for her.
She can now do exercises that for several years she wasn't able to do.
So Relief Factor has been a big game changer for her, her aunt, other members of our family, 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 800-4-RELIEF to find out more about this offer.
The number again, 800-4-RELIEF or go to relieffactor.com.
Feel the difference. I think?
Barr acknowledges that not everything in the indictment may be true, but he says, quote, if even half of the indictment is true, it is very damning.
Trump, not surprisingly, strikes back at Bill Barr, calling him, quote, a gutless pig.
Oh! The Trump goes on to say, he goes on to say, virtually everybody, virtually everybody other than a lowlife like Bill Barr, who you know, who as you know, I terminated because he was gutless.
He wouldn't do what he was supposed to do.
Everybody says this is a disgraceful indictment.
It was done for political reasons.
So, Here we have, look, I mean, I don't think we, again, in a normal political environment, we would say, well, it's Trump's own attorney general.
Even he thinks this is bad.
But I think we have now come far enough along that we don't have to engage in that kind of...
Foolish reasoning.
And it's foolish only because this is a politically motivated business all around.
The attack on Trump is politically motivated.
What Barr is doing is politically motivated.
Now, Barr is taking a little more nuanced position.
Barr admits, in fact, in the interview, he says that a lot of the stuff that was done against Trump is bad.
And he says, for example, that the New York indictment is without merit.
So here's the core of what Barr is saying.
This idea of presenting Trump as a victim here, the victim of a witch hunt, is ridiculous.
Yes, he's been a victim in the past.
Yes, his adversaries have obsessively pursued him with phony claims, and I've been at his side defending him when he's a victim.
Again, here's Barr trying to act like he's the referee of what is and isn't meritorious.
He goes, but this is much different.
He's not a victim here. He's totally wrong that he had the right to have those documents.
Those documents are among the most sensitive secrets the country has.
First of all, I suspect that that last statement is preposterous.
The most sensitive secrets that the country has...
The most are in Trump's possession.
Absurd. Ridiculous.
And even if you look at the indictment, and I've only glanced over it, even the stuff that they're talking about in that indictment is not, quote, the most sensitive secrets that the country has.
So right there, we have reason to view with a raised eyebrow what Barr is saying.
Now... Barr says he was totally wrong that he had the right to have those documents.
And I think this is actually debatable.
It's debatable because the notion of possessing these documents is a complex process of give and take between the archives, by the way, all discovered by the Presidential Records Act.
And the Presidential Records Act, as I've mentioned before, does not have criminal penalties.
It's not a crime to violate the Presidential Records Act.
It's merely an act of stubbornness or indifference, and the government has the right to ultimately get the documents back.
But the idea that you can have someone facing, and if you look at the end of the indictment, it's rather alarming because it talks about all these different counts, and it lists the penalties.
So I'm just looking at it right now.
And so on the Trump's penalty sheet, for example, counts 1 to 31, maximum term 10 years.
Count 32, 20 years.
Count 33, 20 years.
And the rest of them are 20 years.
Scheme to conceal, 5 years.
So we're talking here about taking a man who is well into his 70s and really locking him up for the rest of his life.
For what? For evidently having these national defense secrets in his possession in an ongoing negotiation with the U.S. government over who has a right to keep what.
I don't see much here.
It's a whoop-dee-doo. But it's not a whoop-dee-doo in the sense that it shouldn't be taken seriously.
It should be because the left is very serious about it.
And they're pushing it forward.
Fortunately, Trump has the means to defend himself and defend himself effectively.
I'm also relieved and glad to see that this is a case in Florida in a district that will at least give Trump a jury of his peers.
So as long as people aren't starstruck or aren't somehow, you know...
Bowled over by, oh, it's the Justice Department saying it, therefore it must be true.
I think we'll follow this case carefully as it proceeds, and there's a lot more quite clearly to come.
Debbie and I started eating better this year.
We've lost weight, but foods we can't seem to eat enough of, and it's a requirement, are veggies and fiber.
Now, there's no better way to get all your fruits and veggies plus fiber than with Balance of Nature.
Balance of Nature fiber and spice right here is a proprietary blend of 12 spices for digestive health.
The intense flavors and deep colors of spices are the most condensed whole food source of phytonutrition available.
It's recommended to be paired with this, their star product, fruits and veggies in a capsule.
So easy. Select the whole health system for the best price.
Start your journey to better health right now.
Take advantage of Balance of Nature's Great Offer.
$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. Hey guys, I'd like to welcome to the podcast a new guest.
Her name is Joey Lynn Maceros.
She's a homeschool mom in New Braunfels, Texas.
And she and her husband Robert are being sued by Democrat politicians, Wendy Davis, Biden White House officials in federal court Under the KKK law of 1871 for flying Trump flags next to the Biden bus in 2020.
This seems to me to be insane.
By the way, her website, freespeechdefender.com, freespeechdefender.com.
Joey Lin, welcome. Thanks for joining me.
You were telling me a moment ago that you're, well, a little bit of a recent activist in politics and Tell us a little bit about yourself and kind of what got the fire lighted under you to get involved.
Yes, thank you so much for having me.
You know what? I was brand new to politics when we flew Trump flags next to the Biden bus, which is what we are getting sued for.
I think I had three weeks dipped my toe into the world of politics.
I didn't even know what cancel culture was.
My child was in public school.
I was a working mom.
And since then, Dinesh, I've pulled my son out of school.
I homeschool him. And we are now free speech activists as a result of getting sued for exercising free speech.
I didn't even know what my First Amendment was.
Now let's come back to this idea of flying the Trump flag.
So it's kind of a, it's a clever idea.
And I actually think it's very effective because you've got Biden with this bus going around the country.
And what did you do? Did you drive alongside the bus flying the Trump flag?
What did you actually do?
Yes, sir. So there was a caravan of vehicles, which in 2020, we called the Trump train.
And it was just a way of campaigning and showing your support for President Trump and getting other people excited about getting involved in politics.
That's how we came to really get involved.
And so when we were parading around town several days out of the week, it was very fun.
People would be outside in their lawn chairs, waving, holding signs.
The Biden bus is driving through town.
It's like, oh, well, let's We're good to go.
So there were these lies in the headlines saying we were emboldened, racist bigots, white supremacists crawling out from under our rocks.
The reason we're getting sued under the Ku Klux Klan law is because they're claiming that we banded together on a public highway like the Ku Klux Klan with the intent to suppress minorities from voting.
That's how the progressive left spin things.
And so even though we have a constitutional right to exercise free speech and drive down roads, we pay taxes to drive on.
We're now having to defend our basic rights.
I mean, this is very disturbing to me because it shows that, you know, some people might say, hey, they're going after Trump over the New York case, Stormy Daniels, or they're going after Trump on classified documents.
But then the ordinary person may say, well, you know what?
Well, I mean... I'm not Trump.
I don't have access to classified documents.
So I didn't even go in the Capitol on January 6th.
I'm a law-abiding person.
I just like to live my life, speak my mind.
Nothing's going to happen to me.
And you're living proof that that is actually not the case.
You do something that...
Really seems to me to be not only completely protected constitutionally, but kind of part of the exercise of democracy.
And what you're doing, which the left does all the time, is they show up.
When we show up to do a rally, they show up to do a kind of a counter-protest.
So what are you doing but running alongside the Biden bus?
Now, I'm assuming that there's no truth whatsoever to the fact that you didn't threaten them or try to block What's their supporting evidence for that?
This is the scariest part.
There isn't anything to substantiate these frivolous claims, yet we have been in this lawsuit for two and a half years.
We have tried not once but twice to get this lawsuit dismissed because they have not met the basic requirements of using the Ku Klux Klan law against us, which would be to prove that we were racially motivated.
And they cannot prove this because it doesn't exist, but they've spent two and a half years trying to interrogate our friends, family, And who is named this?
What is the name of this Obama judge?
This is Judge Robert Pittman.
He's in the Western District of Texas.
So the jury of our peers will be in Austin, Texas.
We're trying to appeal to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which is much more conservative.
And after that is the Supreme Court of the United States.
Wow. Let's take a pause.
When we come back, I want to go into a little more detail into the way in which this kind of legal harassment, I mean, one could even call it legal terrorism, is used against ordinary citizens who then have to scramble to find the resources to fight back.
We'll be right back. I think when it comes to towels, nothing compares to MyPillow towels.
Mike Lindell has really hit a home run with his towels.
Imagine having towels that actually work.
The MyPillow towels are soft to the touch without the lotion-y feel.
They have proprietary technology which makes them highly absorbent.
The towels feel good but don't absorb.
MyPillow towels are available in multiple styles and sizes.
They're made with 100% USA cotton.
They're machine-washable and durable.
10-year warranty. 60-day money-back guarantee.
And Mike is running a flash sale on the MyTowel 6P set for $25 with promo code Dinesh.
These towels are regularly $99.98.
So an amazing offer. It includes two bath towels, two hand towels, and two washcloths.
So take advantage.
Call 800-876-0227.
The number again is 800-876-0227 or go to MyPillow.com.
Don't forget to use the promo code D-I-N-E-S-H, Dinesh.
I'm back with Joey Lynn Maceros.
We're talking about this absurd attack on her and others for violating the Ku Klux Klan Law of 1871.
What could be more ridiculous?
In any event, the website is freespeechdefender.com.
You can also, by the way, follow on Twitter at freespeechdef, D-E-F-E-F, And that's the Twitter handle.
Joey Lynn, you were saying a moment ago that you're Hispanic.
Well, you have sort of a Hispanic-sounding last name, but that's your husband's name, and he's Czech.
But what is...
What do you make of this whole notion of Hispanic white supremacists or, in the case of the commentator Larry Elder, the black face of white supremacy?
What does a term like white supremacy mean if it is being attributed to people who are not white?
It has been so diluted as a tool and a weapon that the progressive left uses whenever they feel like it to create agitation in their audience and their viewers very rarely do any research for themselves and so as a result they activate a very aggressive army against conservatives just under the guise of Race, white supremacy, and so on.
And so you don't even get a chance to defend yourself.
And all reason goes out the window when the left can look at minorities and call them white supremacists.
Let's go into the details of this suit.
You're being sued and your husband.
Are there other families who are being sued?
How many families? Talk a little bit about the burden that it imposes on ordinary people when you're suddenly dealing with people on the other side who have resources and you have to scramble to find some.
Man, you hit the nail on the head.
It has been such a challenge.
There initially were five defendants listed in this lawsuit, which we had to find out about through CNN because they had a national press release.
And that's how we learned we were getting sued, listed by name.
And it wasn't until weeks later we actually received the subpoena to understand this is a civil lawsuit.
No criminal charges.
No laws were broken. This is just on the basis of emotions only.
And since then, on the two-year statute of limitations, the very last day of the deadline, they added three more people.
So there were a total of eight defendants, my husband and I being two of them.
Several of these defendants were too scared to speak up, have gone off the grid.
My husband and I are really the most vocal and outspoken about what's going on, this injustice, and trying to activate people to care about defending their basic freedoms.
And so since then, the plaintiffs have coerced two defendants into settling with a forced apology that no doubt they'll be using to testify against us to substantiate these claims they've yet to be able to do.
It's basically like, sign here, sign here, sign here, this is everything we need you to agree to.
And we refuse to apologize for exercising basic rights.
We will not be intimidated and we won't back down.
We want to see a win for free speech rights and we want God to get the glory.
So where they plan to make an example out of us, we plan to make an example out of them.
How are you dealing with That's a great question.
We were shocked to realize there are really no organizations available to help us with this.
We have applied to over 50 nonprofits that align with conservative values and say they specialize in defending the First Amendment, but they all focus on religious freedoms.
So we fall outside the scope for every single one.
that includes Alliance Defending Freedom, Liberty First, the ACLJ, all of the ones that people are like, oh, you should try. We have and it didn't work. And so the progressive left knows we have holes in our defense to protect our First Amendment. And that's exactly where they're going. So what happens when a homeschool mom and a plumber on a single income get sued and there's this Bermuda Triangle of no resources where people either don't want to get involved, or there aren't enough resources to stretch for all these
attacks we're experiencing.
But political free speech is coming under attack more and more by the second.
And we ought to have a defense there.
So we have been fundraising as independently as we can and with very little support from conservative mainstream media.
So it's a huge deal that you're picking up our story.
We have tried and tried and tried and just can't.
It should be national news.
We have the power to set a precedent at the federal level with Either way, bad or good here with this lawsuit.
And this ought to be something that concerns every single American as free speech is for everybody.
So we started freespeechdefender.com as a hope to equip ourselves in this fight to be able to be equipped to fight back.
They have 20 attorneys, multiple nonprofits funding their lawsuit.
We cashed out our 401k, our savings account, and now we're counting on the help of the American people just to stay in this fight.
We're looking at spending upwards of $600,000 in legal defense fees alone, and that's not even what they're asking for for compensation, just to kind of paint that picture.
Wow. Guys, we need to support this and check it out.
The website is freespeechdefender.com.
You can follow the details on Twitter at freespeechdef, D-E-F. Joilin, thank you very much for joining me.
me. I really appreciate it.
Thank you so much to Nash.
Hey guys, I'd like to invite you to check out my locals channel. I post a lot of exclusive content there, including content that's censored on other social media platforms. On locals, you get Dinesh unchanged and ash uncensored. You can also interact with me directly. I do a weekly q&a every Tuesday. No topic is off limits.
I've also uploaded some very cool films to Locals, both documentaries and feature films, both my films and also films by other independent producers.
2000 Mules is up there.
And I'm doing a new film this year.
I'll be giving you the inside scoop on Locals.
And if you're an annual subscriber, you're able to stream and watch all these films for free.
So check out my channel.
It's dinesh.locals.com.
I'd love to have you along for this great ride.
again it's Dinesh.locals.com. One of the interesting commentators on social media is this guy Mike Cernovich and I like Cernovich because he is unpredictable. He is a guy who thinks for himself. He is also bold. He says what he thinks and he doesn't really worry too much about the consequences. He came out for Trump at a time when there were so many people who
would consider you to be an extremist or a kook for supporting Trump.
He didn't hesitate to do that.
So in that sense, he was one of the early Trumpsters.
On the other hand, he's been kind of a fierce advocate for DeSantis.
So, this is a guy who is worth following and worth reading.
By the way, his Twitter handle is just at Cernovich.
And what I want to do today is discuss a recent tweet that he put out that has to do with Reagan.
And I'm discussing it in part because Cernovich is interesting, but in part also because I think it does reflect a wider revisionism among some Trumpsters.
And the idea here is that Reagan was really not that good.
Reagan was, as well, okay president at best, and Trump was, you know, much better than Reagan.
So let me read the quotation, which, again, is written in Cerna, which is somewhat characteristic hyperbole, but nevertheless makes the point.
Other than look handsome, what did Ronald Reagan do?
So, let's start there.
The assumption here is that Reagan's only virtue was his good looks.
And he didn't really do anything else.
So, let's see. Let's look at the details here.
What did Reagan do? And then Cernovich goes on to say what Reagan did.
Amnesty, meaning for illegals, consulted astrologers, cult magic, By the way, not true.
Reagan never consulted an astrologer.
It came out in Kitty Kelly's biography, I believe, of Nancy Reagan, that Nancy Reagan consulted astrologers.
So this is not Reagan.
Three, gun control.
Four, appointed liberal Supreme Court justices.
Again, not really true.
Reagan appointed Scalia.
That was his first appointment.
Liberal? Really? I don't even think Cernovich thinks that.
But then in the second round, Reagan appointed, I guess it was Anthony Kennedy, right?
Was it Kennedy? Wasn't it?
Oh, Sandra Day O'Connor.
And Sandra Day O'Connor turned out to be unreliable.
So, let's just say Reagan, you know, had a mixed record on the Supreme Court.
Quote, Here, I think the key word is let.
And I actually don't even know what he's talking about here.
And then he goes, Trump was far superior as POTUS by results.
It's not even a debate.
Well, what were the results?
In the case of Trump, you had a good economy.
But in the case of Reagan, you had a fantastic economy.
The Dow Jones Industrial Average was 800 in 1982.
Right after Reagan came to office, it was, I think, 3,400.
So it multiplied four times under Reagan.
And so there was a Reagan boom, which, by the way, continued into the 1990s.
But this is not my point to kind of quibble with the details of Sernovich's indictment.
It's that he really misses the big picture.
And that is that there are certain times in American history where really important issues come to the forefront.
And it makes no sense for a president who is dealing with the main issues to be then faulted retroactively for not dealing with other issues.
Clearly more minor issues.
It's kind of like if someone were to make a case against Lincoln.
Lincoln was not a very good president.
He was wrong on tariffs.
He opposed Texas's entry into the Union.
Well, maybe so.
But the fundamental issue for Lincoln was slavery, was the giant crisis that ultimately culminated in the Civil War.
And if Lincoln was right on that, What sense does it make to then fault him on the other issues which were not his primary focus and rightly so?
Same with Reagan. Reagan was focused on the Cold War.
Did he or did he not play a critical role in ending the Cold War?
Pope John Paul did.
Margaret Thatcher did. Lech Walesa did.
But the primary mover was Reagan.
By the way, if you doubt this, look at my book, Ronald Reagan, How an Ordinary Man Became an Extraordinary Leader.
Similarly, Reagan was focused on stagflation.
In other words, getting an economy, similar, by the way, to the one we're headed toward, stagnant growth and inflation.
How do you break the back of inflation and kick off the engine of economic growth?
It's not easy to do it.
Reagan did it. So Reagan was focused.
Reagan believed that you can't change the world in 30 ways.
You can change the world in two, maybe three ways.
And so he focused on the Soviet Union.
He focused on reviving the economy.
He focused on reviving patriotism.
He focused on mobilizing the Reagan doctrine to support freedom movements around the world.
And if he did that, and he did all that successfully, the rest of it is just trivialities.
I'm continuing my discussion about how atheism is the opiate of the morally corrupt.
This is a reversal and inversion of the old Marxist idea that religion is the opium of the people.
And what I've been arguing is that what appeals to people about atheism is it gives you kind of a cover for moral vices.
That now find in atheism a kind of pretext and justification.
Hey, there's no God. There's no moral supervisor of our actions.
We're not going to be held accountable after our death.
Therefore, we can live pretty much the way that we want.
Now, the key to all of this is the idea of sex.
And I think it's chiefly because of sex that most contemporary atheists have chosen to break with Christianity.
I'm now quoting Bertrand Russell.
The worst feature of the Christian religion is its attitude towards sex.
And interestingly, even Christopher Hitchens writes, quote,"...the divorce between the sexual life and fear can now at last be attempted on the sole condition that we banish all religions from the discourse." So, when atheists give elaborate justifications, oh, you know what, God doesn't exist, I don't see the evidence, traditional morality is an illusion, very likely they're thinking of their own sex organs.
And it may well be that if it wasn't for the single commandment against adultery, against the single commandment advocating sexual purity, Western man would still be Christian.
Malcolm Muggeridge, the famous commentator of the BBC, Convert to Catholicism, pointed out many years ago that eroticism is the mysticism of materialism.
In other words, materialism is this kind of dry...
Unappealing philosophy. We're all material objects in the world.
We have no spiritual life and so on.
But there has to be a kind of mystical element here.
And Muggeridge goes, yeah, the mystical element comes from sexuality.
And interestingly, the guy who says this in the most clear way is someone we don't normally quote, at least not openly, and that is the apostle of sexual deviancy, the Marquis de Sade.
In his dialogue between a priest and a dying man, Desaad has this dying man confess.
And he goes, yeah, I had to get rid of my belief in God.
He goes, because that was the first step to kind of unleashing my sex life.
So he basically makes a direct connection between atheism and sexual, well, deviancy.
In another work called Philosophy in the Bedroom, Desaad features a 15-year-old nun who has shed her faith in God.
And instead of that, what does she replace it with?
Incest, sodomy, sexual flagellation, all this sort of sexual extremism, and all of it is now allowed, it's permitted, because God has been removed from the picture.
Now, a lot of modern atheists today aren't going to embrace the Marquis de Sade.
They're not into the kind of open advocacy of blood and cruelty that is part of de Sade's work, sadism, masochism, and so on.
And Nietzsche, too, is a little bit out of bounds here.
So, by and large, we see a lot of defenses here of promiscuity, of adultery, homosexuality, trans phenomenon.
And so, my objection here is not to the passions themselves.
I mean, religious believers, of course, understand the power of the passions.
I'm thinking here of Augustine praying to God.
He goes, make me chaste, O Lord, but not yet.
So it's not as if Augustine doesn't know what the atheists are up to.
Augustine would not find it puzzling or mysterious that a whole generation of young people today rebel against Christianity.
Why? Mainly because of its teachings on things like premarital sex, contraception, abortion, homosexuality, divorce.
Now, in a way, sexual gratification has become our modern society's secular sacrament.
And I think the reason for this is that sexuality gives you a momentary feeling of eternity, even in this life, a kind of sense of transcending the material world.
Many years ago, I met a monk who said to me that he does regular fasting.
But then he said, I also occasionally flagellate myself.
I beat myself. And I was like, wow, what a weirdo.
But he goes, no, I'm not a weirdo.
I'm mortifying my body for Christ.
And he says, listen, if you think that's really strange, think of all the people today who undergo all kinds of painful treatments on their body for other reasons.
They undergo massive facial surgery and plastic surgery to produce these cosmetic improvements.
They undergo massive physical punishment and exercise in order to have a more attractive or shapely body.
So the point is, they're mortifying their body for secular reasons.
Why is it so bad to do the same for a genuinely religious motive?
Now, if sex is unhooked from the oral moral restraints, there are going to be unwanted pregnancies.
And here we get to sort of atheism's second sacrament, which is abortion.
I've said before in other contexts that the horror of abortion is not just that a woman kills a child, but that a woman kills her own child.
And, you know, there's going to be guilt for this for any morally healthy person.
And so it's necessary for atheism to fight that guilt by paving the way for abortion with a clear conscience.
The first step is to get rid of God, because then there is no spirit of the dead child to disturb the conscience, no hell to pay for violating the commandment against the deliberate taking of human life.
And the second step, almost inevitable, is to define the fetus as not really human.
And here, obligingly, is Sam Harris in his book called The End of Faith.
And he goes, Many of us consider human fetuses in the first trimester to be more or less like rabbits who do not deserve, quote, full status in our moral community.
Subscribe to the Dinesh D'Souza Podcast on Apple, Google, and Spotify.
▲
Export Selection