All Episodes
Previous Next
June 30, 2023 - Dinesh D'Souza
48:36
CREATED EQUAL Dinesh D’Souza Podcast Ep612
| 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.
That's friendofdinesh.com.
Coming up, an examination and celebration of the huge Supreme Court decision ending racial preferences in college admissions.
Debbie joins me.
We're going to talk about the shifting contours of the abortion debate, how Trump is the only recent president not descended from slave owners, and Republicans who are reluctant to impeach Biden because we are better than they are.
Hey, if you're watching on Rumble or listening on Apple, Google or Spotify, please subscribe to my channel.
I'd appreciate it. This is the Dinesh D'Souza show.
America needs this voice.
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.
I want to examine and celebrate the massive decision coming out of the Supreme Court.
ending affirmative action in college admissions.
Now, this is hugely significant on many levels, the philosophical level, the constitutional level, the practical level, and perhaps not surprisingly, it is a 6-3 decision.
So it's a decision that cuts right down ideological lines.
The six conservatives, and I'm including in this Chief Justice Roberts, by the way, Roberts wrote the majority decision with the three progressives being in dissent.
By the way, this cements my point that the left, when they pick judges, and there have been decisions in which the progressives have gone with the conservatives.
In fact, about the same time, I was just telling Debbie, an interesting decision on religious freedom.
And the court basically says that, no, somebody makes a conscientious objection based on their religion.
There was a case, for example, that Kelly Shackelford talked about on my podcast where a postman was being called in to deliver mail on Sunday.
I guess this was part of an agreement between the post office and maybe UPS or some of these other services.
And the guy goes, I can't work on Sunday.
Sunday is the day for the Lord.
Sunday is the day that I don't work.
And they were trying to force him.
Well, listen, in that case, we're going to fire you.
And basically what the Supreme Court says here is you can't do it.
Unless the rule would impose a substantial cost on the business.
And in this case, there was no substantial cost.
They could easily get somebody else to work on Sunday and this guy's happy to work any other day.
So that really was...
Another important decision.
And Ketanji Jackson, in fact, that was a unanimous decision.
So all three progressives voted with the conservatives on that, and that's significant.
But when it comes to the really critical issues, it always breaks down ideologically.
And this affirmative action issue is like that.
In fact, I think it is of the same sort of significance as the Dobbs decision.
Why? Because you're taking a practice that is now almost 40, 50 years old, that's become entrenched.
In a very bad way in our society, in our culture, it's created a whole, let's call it affirmative action mentality.
It's the whole idea that I'm black, so I deserve something.
I'm a victim, and so I need to be paid.
And all of this has corroded our society.
It's taken us further and further away from Martin Luther King's goal of the race-blind society.
So think about the irony. At the very time when the country is making massive progress on race relations, in which the laws are changed to install equality of rights under the law, people should be judged on their merits as individuals and not based on the color of their skin.
At this very time, the left...
Along with some so-called civil rights activists, push for racial preferences.
Now, initially, they didn't admit that.
They didn't say, yeah, we want racial preferences.
They said, well, we need to take affirmative action.
This is a kind of classic corporate type of phrase.
Affirmative action, almost as if we need to widen the pool of applicants by publicizing opportunities.
Go to the inner city. Oh, you know what?
You actually can apply to Harvard.
There's nothing to prevent you from applying to a good college.
Go ahead and apply so that colleges get more applicants, they can choose the best ones.
But quickly, this idea, this relatively innocent-sounding idea, metamorphosed into a deeply entrenched regime of racial preferences in which, by and large, Black, but also Hispanic and Latino candidates with much lower qualifications are admitted over whites and Asian-Americans with much stronger qualifications.
And there are examples in the Supreme Court decision which are kind of shocking.
At Harvard, for example, you see that if you're basically a mediocre Black or Hispanic, you have a pretty good chance of getting into Harvard.
And if you are a white or Asian of the same caliber or even vastly stronger, you have virtually no chance of getting in.
So this is scandalous, right?
Because what does it do?
It makes a mockery of the idea of merit.
It basically says to applicants in a racial pool, listen, you're not all going to be judged together.
We're not going to say, okay, the Harvard freshman class or any, you can substitute any other college.
I mentioned Harvard because Harvard was one of the two colleges in the Supreme Court case, We're good to go.
Is that you're turning away highly competent candidates and you're admitting very mediocre ones.
By the way, this, of course, contributes to high dropout rates at the other end of the spectrum because, after all, I mean, think about it.
If you're a mediocre student, it's not to say that you can't go to university.
It's not to say you can't graduate from college.
But if you are placed in an environment where you are not competitive with other students, almost like taking a ninth grader and saying, okay, you're You're a mediocre 9th grader, but guess what?
We're going to put you in the 12th grade, where you're going to compete against students who have far better academic preparation, are far more familiar with the work, and so on, and so obviously you're not going to do very well.
Then that affects your self-esteem.
You begin to think you are inferior, and in fact, academically speaking, you are, but then you try to justify that by saying, oh, well, the institution is racist, all the tests are racist, and so on.
So you've just got this nasty mentality Vicious circle or vicious cycle, as some people say, going on and the Supreme Court happily has brought all that to an end.
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? Relief Factor 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 is a true believer she can now do the exercises that for a long time she wasn't able to do.
Relief Factor has been a huge 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.
You'll feel the difference.
The Supreme Court, in its massive decision overturning racial preferences in universities, has now opened up the question, so now what happens?
And I'm going to focus on that critical question rather than review the history of racial preferences or try even to look analytically at the decision.
The decision is obviously anchored in the Constitution, the principles of the Constitution, which are basically equal rights under the law.
And the same principle is enshrined in the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
It's the underlying logic of the Brown versus Board of Education decision of 1954, overturning segregation.
It is the essence of what Martin Luther King said when he said that he dreamed of a country where we'd be judged on, well, he said, by the content of our character, but more broadly, judged as individuals.
So, in other words, the idea here is that we are all in the country, a minority of one, and rights accrue to us as individuals, not as members of groups.
But all of this is, I think by now, relatively well known, at least by my audience.
Universities are not going to take this decision, I would say, lying down.
So in other words, they're going to try to figure out how do we get a diverse student body without now discriminating explicitly on the basis of race.
And I think what's going to happen, and this is worth thinking about because there's going to be a lot of litigation about this, they're going to try to use proxies for race.
And proxies for race means we set up a criterion, a standard, and we use that standard pretending that we are not dealing with race even though we really are.
Now, what are those proxies?
Well, one obvious proxy, for example, is income.
So you say, for example, we're going to give lower-income students an advantage.
We're not going to give an advantage to Black students, but of course by giving lower-income students an advantage and Blacks being disproportionately in the ranks of low-income students, they would benefit disproportionately from a, quote, low-income affirmative action rather than a race-based affirmative action.
I endorsed some version of this idea in my book, Illiberal Education, which is now almost 30 years ago.
But I have second thoughts about it because I think that when you use proxies for race...
What you're doing is just hiding the fact that you're engaging in racial thinking and racial consideration without explicitly kind of acknowledging that.
To understand what I'm getting at, let's take an example.
Let's say, for example, that you are in the Democratic South.
You're a bigot, as many Democrats were in the South.
You want to prevent blacks from voting.
So you say, listen, I'm not going to prevent blacks from voting.
I'm just going to have a poll tax.
You have to pay a dollar to vote.
And I'm going to impose the poll tax on everybody who votes.
But, of course, I know that because blacks at the time are a lot poorer than whites, it's going to impose an undue or disproportionate burden on blacks.
They're less likely to vote if they've got to pay a dollar.
Or I'm going to impose a literacy test.
Again, my idea here is this.
By and large, literacy rates for whites at the time are much higher than that for blacks.
And so if everybody's got to take a test, even though it is the same test, it's a facially neutral test, the result is motivated by race and in fact has a clear racial impact.
Now what courts have done is they've said, listen, this is a scam.
You can't do that.
You cannot pretend not to be discriminating on the basis of race while actually doing it.
And the Supreme Court...
Other courts have routinely struck down rules that are seemingly neutral but are clearly designed to and have the impact of discrimination on the basis of race.
I think the same logic applies here.
Which is to say, if colleges develop schemes, and by the way, there's a whole bunch of schemes that have been cleverly devised already.
Some of them are already in effect.
In Texas, for example, they had a scheme, and again, this was driven by a court case, and the legislature of Texas said, okay, well, what we're going to do is we're going to basically take the top 10% of students from any school are going to be eligible to get into the UT system.
California has a similar rule.
When affirmative action was struck down in California.
Several years ago, they realized that they're not going to be able to discriminate in this way, and so they decided, well, look, let's figure out an end run around the rule.
Let's achieve diversity by using a criterion that's not explicitly racial.
We'll use a 10% rule.
Another common device, this was used by Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology.
They say, in addition to considering grades and test scores, we're going to consider, quote, life experience.
And when you say life experience, what life experience?
Are you talking about extracurricular skills?
No, no, we're not talking about that.
By life experience, we mean, did you go to a historically underrepresented public school, middle school, or were you eligible for reduced price meals?
And you can see right here again, what they're trying to do is use a substitute, a proxy, to get a racial result that they are not allowed to get explicitly.
So, the point being, I think these are going to be challenged because people are going to go to the court and say, just as in the case of the poll tax.
And just as in the case of the literacy test, this is a disguised form of racial discrimination.
And if the court doesn't want to have race as a factor in decision making, it's important to strike down all these proxies as well.
The debt ceiling crisis has come to a head.
This administration is doing its best to force more government spending.
They've reached a settlement to get the deal done.
But for now, our national debt continues to skyrocket.
How irresponsible. 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 easiest way to do it.
Birch Gold will help you convert an existing IRA of 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 the process started.
Text Dinesh to 989898 today.
I'm talking about the potential consequences of the new Supreme Court decision striking down affirmative action in college admissions.
And as I was saying in the last segment, this is very good news.
Let's pause for a moment just to relish how important this is.
The country was making dramatic progress toward enshrining equal rights under the law, moving away from being a society that allowed many forms of racial discrimination, including, by the way, segregation.
Segregation is a form of racial discrimination, but there were others as well.
Segregation was concentrated in the South, but racial discrimination was more pervasive.
And then the country began to move away from this.
I think a decisive moment was the end of World War II and Hitler.
But by the 1950s, there was a virtual consensus in the country that there was no intellectual basis to discriminate on the basis of race.
And the laws began to change.
And then we enter into an era of real progress.
But really, as soon as the late 1970s, there's a U-turn, a turnaround.
And now we begin to see racial preferences creep in, but in the opposite direction.
So the racial preferences are now intended to fight the history of discrimination.
But see, the point is they don't fight it so much as they add to it.
They exacerbate the problem.
Think of it sort of this way. A black guy and a white guy Apply for admission to a college, let's say circa 1930.
Let's just say that the black guy is better qualified, but the white guy gets the spot.
Well, that's racial discrimination.
That's bad. That's wrong.
But now fast forward to, let's say, 1990, or let's fast forward to two years ago, where a black guy and a white guy apply to UNC, University of North Carolina.
And in this case, the white guy is more qualified, but the black guy gets the spot.
What is that? Well, that's called affirmative action.
But if you think about it, all I see are two cases of racial discrimination.
The earlier one in favor of...
The white guy and the later one in favor of the black guy.
Now, interestingly, in these cases that went before the Supreme Court, there was a consideration of blacks and whites, but happily, I think this helped the decision.
It wasn't just a black and white issue.
Why? Because you now have a wrinkle, and the wrinkle is Asian Americans.
Asian Americans are a minority.
Asian Americans perform very well in school.
Asian Americans have been discriminated against historically in this country.
And so, Asian Americans become victims of a racial exclusion program, of an anti-merit program.
Why? Because they're performing too well.
And so, their group is being reduced to make room.
I mean, think about it. Algebraically, admissions is a zero-sum game.
And if you want to increase the number of the underrepresented groups, you've got to reduce the number of the overrepresented groups.
And which group is more over-represented than any other?
Well, if you're looking at the racial categories, it's clearly Asian Americans.
Now, we want to have college admissions based upon achievement, based upon merit, based upon intellectual promise.
Hey listen, not everybody should go to college.
People who go to college should go to colleges where they're good enough, they've got the academic preparation to do the work, and that they're more likely to succeed in those places.
But I think what's going to happen now that racial preferences have been struck down, let's remember, you've got these ideologues in the dean's offices and the admissions offices, and they want a diverse student body, and they care more about that than they even do about education.
And I think in a weird way, one of the bad things we're going to see is that schools will now say, or we're going to start seeing this happen, we're not going to use standardized tests.
We're not even really going to be looking at any good measures of merit.
Why? Because if we look at those measures of merit, they're going to produce a racially, quote, inequitable result.
We're going to see the familiar pattern.
Asian Americans on top, whites come in second, Latinos third, African Americans on the bottom.
This pattern is really the result of pretty much any standardized test, whether it's the SAT or the ACT, whether it's the GMAT or the LSAT, whether it's the police sergeant's exam or the firefighter's test.
It doesn't matter what test you use, the result is always predictable in the manner I've just described.
So one of my worries, and I say this regularly, With some caution, is the fact that I think universities are going to become increasingly unmeritocratic.
I mean, one of the weird benefits of affirmative action is that if you're going to depart from meritocracy, at least you just take the category of people who are going to be treated sort of as special.
Affirmative action is a kind of Special Olympics in the end of it.
It's sort of like you almost treat certain groups, and in this case African Americans, as a handicapped group.
And you say, listen, we're going to have a Special Olympics.
You run in your own handicapped lane, but we're going to take the fastest and the best athletes in your lane.
But at least the merit is preserved for the rest of the applicants.
But what happens is when you say no racial preferences in these universities, well, how are we going to get these, you know, how are we going to get this group?
How are we going to get more African Americans here when, after all, universities are all about achievement and tests and merit?
Well, let's get rid of merit.
Let's just have people apply based on lottery or based on recommendations.
After all, people can lie through their teeth in recommendations.
The recommendations are, by and large, all made up.
Uncle so-and-so, can you write a great one for me?
Not since Jesus Christ I've ever seen.
You know, all this kind of stuff.
So, I think that we're...
This is not going to be a uniformly good thing.
Why? Because these universities are so messed up, they're so confused, they're so ideologically dug in, that they will respond to a very good Supreme Court decision in a very bad way.
Mike Lindell is an amazing offer for my listeners and viewers on his Giza Elegance MyPillows.
You get a Giza Elegance MyPillow for as low as $19.98.
Regular price, $69.98.
This MyPillow comes in four levels of support.
You'll also get deep discounts, by the way, on all the MyPillow products.
MyPillow towels, mattress topper, my slippers, and so much more.
Go to MyPillow.com to get Mike's amazing offer on the Giza Elegance MyPillow for as low as $19.98 or call 800-876-0227.
Use promo code Dinesh.
The offer comes with a 10-year warranty so you know it's going to last, a 60-day money-back guarantee so you have nothing to lose.
It's time to start getting the quality sleep that we not only want but need.
Go to MyPillow.com or call 800-876-0227.
Use promo code Dinesh to take advantage of Mike's special offer on his Giza Elegance MyPillow.
That number again, 800-876-0227.
Don't forget to use the promo code DineshDinesh.
Debbie and I are here for our Friday Roundup, and we actually want to start by making an announcement about next week.
So we're going to be in London next week, all of next week.
And so my daughter, Danielle D'Souza Gill, and her husband, Brandon, the two of them are going to, between them, tag team on the podcast, and they'll be guest hosting.
So I hope that you enjoy it while we're gone, and we'll be back the week following on On Monday.
I'm looking forward to it.
It's kind of a reunion with my family.
I have a brother and sister who live in India.
I haven't seen them since COVID or pre-COVID, before COVID. And so we decided let's kind of meet halfway.
London is kind of equidistant from us.
But you keep calling it India. I keep saying we're going to India.
We're going to India. I'm like, no, we're not.
What I mean is we're going to be...
I can't even say we're going to be connecting up with the Indians because I'm Indian.
Yeah. So anyway, we have all kinds of fun stuff planned.
And we're also going to be watching some tennis at Wimbledon, which I'm really excited about.
So we got a lot of good stuff planned.
Hey, what do you make of this big Supreme Court decision?
I mean, I'm ecstatic about it.
I think it's about time.
It really is about time.
I think that affirmative action was the most racist action, I believe, in our lifetime.
When they simply viewed people as racial beings.
And if you happen to be Latino or Black, you were given sort of a hand up, right?
When some of us didn't need a hand up.
Some of us were, we could do it ourselves if we really wanted to.
And I just believe that it gives people a whole new level of, you know what, this is my own merit.
I am deserving of this because I work for it, not because someone determined that I was good enough.
I mean, I remember you telling me, well, this was going back to when we were courting, that even though you were eligible for affirmative action benefits as a Latina, because you're 100% Latina, you refused to check the box.
I would not check it.
I would not check it. And in fact, even in college, you know, my last name, of course, is Spanish, right?
It's Estero. And I I wouldn't put that I was Hispanic.
And some of my professors were like, are you not Hispanic?
You know? You were like, well, yeah.
I was like, yeah, but what does that have to do with anything?
I can make an A just because I'm Hispanic.
You think I can't make an A? Is that what you're saying?
Well, yeah. The defenders of affirmative action always said, well, this is compensatory justice.
And they would give an example.
The example would be like, let's say, for example, you're walking on the street and a truck runs over you, your foot, or it smashes your arm.
Well, you've been wronged.
And so you should be a beneficiary of some compensation.
But see, here's the point. Think about it.
When you have a black guy and a white guy, let's use a classic example, applying to university.
What do you have to compensate that black guy for?
In other words, nobody's discriminated against him.
He's not even making the case that he's in some way disadvantaged from getting into this college because he's black.
He's not saying, for example, I wasn't given books when I was a kid and my teachers called me the N-word.
None of that. There's no showing of any kind of victimization.
It's just, I'm black. Therefore, I deserve to have like 80 points added to my total.
And this is just laughable.
It's stupid. And yet this stupidity has been part of our law for decades.
And these are the very same people that fight against school choice.
Right? It's almost like, no, they don't want you to compete on a level playing field.
They don't want it.
That's why they don't want school choice.
Because think about it.
some of these kids that live in really poor inner city areas, they don't have the same type of education that a white suburban kid would have.
And so what school choice advocates are saying is, why not?
Why not get this kid to be able to compete on a level playing field?
So the very same people that say, let's give them a hand up, are like, no, let's not do that.
You're making a really important point.
I mean, what Debbie's saying, and I'm just going to put it slightly differently, is just this, that there is a certain plausibility to the idea that you have inner-city kids who are smart and would do pretty well if they were taught well, but they have horrible schools.
And the point is, Republicans want to give those parents a choice so that they can choose between, you know, you want to go, by the way, you want to go to a Nation of Islam school?
Go there. You want to go to a Catholic school?
Go here. You want to go to a private school?
Go here. So you put the power in the hands of parents and the Democrats and the left are totally against that.
It's almost like they like the system.
They'd rather have horrible public schools that teach you nothing and then racial preferences to get into college.
And by the way, the preferences never stop with the admissions, right?
Because you get in, you can't do the work.
Then the teacher has got to basically go, well, that guy's black.
I can't give him a C or a D. I'm going to have to give him a B+. And so you now have affirmative action in grading, affirmative action in handing out academic awards, and then affirmative action in getting into law school and business school, affirmative action in getting a government job and getting a government contract.
It never ends.
It never ends. It never ends.
And so kudos to the Supreme Court for putting their foot down and deciding, with a pretty decisive 6-3 margin, enough of this nonsense.
Let's get back to that idea that that fellow Martin Luther King talked about.
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, what better way to get all your fruits and veggies plus fiber than with Balance of Nature?
This is Balance of Nature's Fiber and Spice.
It's 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.
So, act now.
Call 800-246-8751.
That's 800-246-8751.
Or go to balanceofnature.com.
Use discount code AMERICA.
Talking about the Supreme Court, it's a year since the Dobbs decision which effectively overturned not just Roe versus Wade, but the Casey decision, a whole bunch of decisions that came in the wake of Roe.
And now with the one year anniversary, the left is trying to reinterpret, reassess, basically argue this was a horrible decision.
By the way, we're probably gonna see the same thing a year from now about the Supreme Court's affirmative action decision, but talk about how the left is trying to reframe the debate around abortion.
Especially in Texas, it being the largest state to ban abortions, there's a lot coming out on that.
The Texas Tribune, of course, is a very left-wing newspaper and publication.
And they came out with this article that I read and I just wanted to vomit, really.
And it says, Now stop right here for a second, honey, because let's think about it.
How do they know that? They don't know it.
Do they cite any surveys of public opinion?
No. What you have here is a left-wing reporter essentially kind of channeling what she or he is.
Eleanor Klebanoff basically goes, I'm outraged, therefore the state of Texas is outraged.
Women across Texas are outraged.
This is all fabrication, but continue.
Yeah, so they went on to interview a few people, and basically this one doctor that had to be closed down in San Antonio, he closed his clinic.
He had been, not only, get this, was he an abort?
He decided to open up a couple of clinics in San Antonio, but then his daughters then also Decided to help him with that. I think him doctors and and doing this and when when Roe v. Wade was struck down They moved their clinics to I believe it was, New Mexico See I forget where where they said but anyway So that they could then do abortions there and bring the women from Texas there
It is so I mean the key thing here is abortion is a business And like a lot of businesses, I mean, trans is a business.
And there's a lot of money to be made in these things.
Because think about it. People go in for an abortion.
How long does the procedure take?
And how much money do you get for it?
Probably a lot. It's pretty profitable.
I mean, you go into Planned Parenthood and you say, listen, I want to get some contraceptives.
Well, that's a low-cost product.
Planned Parenthood is not going to make a ton of money on contraceptives.
By and large, contraceptives are close to being free anyway.
But they make a lot of money on abortion.
It's big business, for sure. It's big business.
And then listen to this.
They go on and they say, meanwhile, despite exceptions to the law, The number of monthly abortions in Texas has dropped into the low single digits.
As if that is a bad thing.
It's such a great thing.
If you think about it, by and large, Texas is now largely abortion-free.
But look how they respond with mourning.
Women are nearly dying from pregnancy complications.
Or dying from having to travel out of state for an abortion.
How do you die when you're traveling out of state?
Look. Or facing million-dollar lawsuits for helping friends acquire abortion medication.
An unknown number of having babies they never planned for.
Well, you know what? When I was in seventh grade, I learned how you can get pregnant.
And that is still kind of the standard today.
So, you know, I think...
We have access to contraception all over America.
And I think that in some instances, yes, it is very, very, very rare for the life of the mother to be at stake, right?
Or the life of the infant or whatever.
Very rare does that happen.
But they act as though that is like...
It's astronomical in the amount of abortions that are not taking place.
No, what they do is they rely on the horrific exception to try to discredit the rule.
What these guys are for, I mean, Eleanor Klinghofer, whatever her name is, and the Democrats, they want nine months of abortion.
They want abortion up to the moment of birth.
And so this barbarism, I mean, I feel it even more now.
I mean, you know, Danielle, as you know, is entering her ninth month.
She's delivering in July.
Yeah. And, you know, you have a living, moving, breathing, developed human being that is just merely waiting to exit the womb.
And the idea that you should have abortion at the late stage is just outrageous.
Yeah, well, you know, Biden was asked about that not too long ago, and he told a crowd that he's not a supporter of late-term abortion.
And that he says that he is very much with the Catholics standing on it.
Well, no, because the Catholics' view on abortion is the baby, the minute it's conceived, is a human life.
And that is not Biden's stance.
And I mean, that's not just, I mean, it is the Catholic view, but it also is the scientific view.
Because think about it, when does a human life come into being?
At birth? Yeah. So are you saying it's not a human life in the womb?
Well, is it an animal life?
Is it some other kind of life?
No, if it's life, it's human life.
So then it just becomes, is it life at all?
Well, of course it is. But you know what?
We have not been able to make the case for this, for the morality of having an abortion.
We just haven't. We lost that battle.
Because when you ask people about abortion rights, they're like, well, yeah, you know, we should be able to have one.
They don't understand that It's not moral to have one because they are taking a life.
And we haven't made that case.
And I think until we make that case, we're going to be really divided on this issue.
Yeah, I mean, this is an important point.
People, if you were to say to someone, we want to kill this four-year-old over here, they'd be like, no way, you can't take a human life.
So what Debbie's saying is that despite the availability of ultrasound and all this technology, leaving aside even the religious arguments, there's simply a, not even a scientific, but a visual argument against abortion.
There it is. Take a look for yourself.
We somehow haven't communicated that.
Of course, we're dealing with the fog of the media.
We're dealing with reporters like this woman from the Texas Tribune.
They're putting out all this propaganda on the other side.
So this is also what we're up against.
I'd like to invite you guys to check out my Locals channel.
I post a lot of exclusive content on that platform, including content that is censored on other social media platforms.
On Locals, you get Dinesh Unchained, Dinesh Uncensored.
You can also interact with me directly.
I do a live weekly Q&A every Tuesday.
No topic is off limits.
I've also uploaded some very cool films to Locals, documentaries, feature films, both my films and films by other independent producers.
Two Thousand Mules is up there.
I'm doing a big new film this year.
I'll be giving you the inside scoop on Locals.
If you're an annual subscriber, you can stream and watch all these films, including the new one, for free.
So check it out. My channel is dinesh.locals.com.
I'd love to have you along for this great ride.
Again, it's dinesh.locals.com.
I had Representative Clay Higgins of Louisiana on the podcast a couple of days ago.
We were talking about Biden corruption.
And he was very hardcore in laying out the emerging evidence for it and the seriousness of it.
He even talked about the Biden crime family.
But then toward the end of the interview, he said something very interesting, which is that he said, I'm not one of these people who is pushing for immediate, and I highlight the word immediate, impeachment.
He goes, we've got to be very cautious.
We've got to be very deliberate.
The Constitution sets a very high standard, and we conservatives need to be principled constitutionalists.
And both Debbie and I were like a little uneasy about this.
In fact, I was tempted to say, hey, Congressman, let's do another segment.
I want to press you on that.
Debbie's like, you should have done that.
But we were talking about it afterward.
There's this Republican desire, we'll play by the rules even though you're not playing by the rules because we are more principled than you are.
But this isn't even a case of we want to impeach him because we don't like him.
This isn't even that.
If it were that, he may have a point.
Because that's why they impeached Trump.
They didn't like him. It wasn't because Trump had any kind of high crime or misdemeanor or anything like that.
It was they didn't like him and they had to find anything to get him out.
Hence the two very different impeachments and both of them equally preposterous.
Exactly, preposterous. Just unimaginable what they did to that man.
So, we don't like Biden.
We think he's a nut job.
I think he's a senile, crooked, corrupt individual.
But that is not a reason to impeach.
However, they have found a reason to impeach.
And it's not a matter of, well, we have to go back to the Constitution to see if that actually is a reason.
No, it's a reason.
Accepting millions of dollars from foreign entities, including your adversaries.
And I think you also made the point, I remember when there were a couple of early impeachment resolutions that were focused on the border.
Yeah. You made the point, and I agree with this, that that's, you know, horrible, though Biden's actions are on the border, and they are a flouting of our laws of immigration.
Nevertheless, it's a policy dispute.
Biden does have the counter-argument.
Well, listen, I've been given enforcement authority.
I need to have some enforcement discretion.
That's all that I'm doing at the border.
So it doesn't seem to rise to the level.
It's not a high crime.
Right. But collecting money and distributing it among members of the Biden family, multiple shell companies.
Oh, and the more that comes out, the more it's like, I mean, like just recently, the fact that the big guy, you know, this IRS whistleblower just came out and he talked on Bret Baier last night.
Yes. And he basically said that Biden knew exactly what was going on, that they were trying to keep him kind of secret, but that he was aware that actually that he was in on it.
Well, the other thing is the amount of money.
So initially I've talked about the $5 million that came from China and flowed into the Hunter Biden accounts, but the numbers go up and up and up.
And according to Gary Shapley, the IRS whistleblower, We're talking about over $10 million of taxable money that's flowing toward the Bidens.
And according to something I just saw from Representative James Comer, you could be talking as high as $40 million going to the Bidens.
So these people have perfected a racket.
I mean, even when you had the Clinton Foundation, there was money flowing into the Clinton Foundation.
But as far as I know, nobody claimed that that money went into the Clinton's own bank accounts.
You know, maybe this was a shrewd camouflage and the foundation then pays for things that Clintons do.
Yeah, no, exactly. This is a legitimate point.
But the blatant nature of this setting up this family operation where innumerable family members are going to foreign entities and shaking them down.
Right, right. The grandkids, names under the grandkids.
I mean, this is just As far as I know, there's no precedent in American politics.
I don't think any president in American history has ever met.
I mean, we've had Tammany Hall, we've had politicians who basically say, listen, you know, you contribute to my re-election campaign.
So a certain amount of this quid pro quo has been going on, but it's the blatancy of it, it's the magnitude of it, and it's involving foreign adversaries.
So raising the whole question of, are you owned by the Chinese communists?
He's their biatch.
And he is. And you know, I used to think that Hugo Chavez was the most corrupt person to ever fill an office until Biden.
Because it's incredible how this...
So your point really is that there is a legitimate reason to push forward with the impeachment.
Again, there's more evidence coming in.
And obviously, we're not talking about circumventing the process.
No. We're talking about going through the process, beginning it, and a trial.
Let's put it all out there.
Let the Senate decide.
Let the American people see what's going on.
Let the media be forced to cover it.
And then let's have a fair verdict.
There is an interesting and actually quite amusing article.
This is Fox News.
Trump is the only living U.S. president not descended from slaveholders, report says.
And it turns out that a lot of the earlier presidents, including Obama on his mom's side, are descended from slaveholders.
Not slaves, but slave owners.
But not Trump.
Then they do the search for Congress members.
It turns out a bunch of them do, including, by the way, a whole bunch of Democrats.
Elizabeth Warren is descended from slaveholders.
Is that a surprise?
Well, it is a surprise for those people who thought she's American Indian.
Oh, that, yeah. Jean Shaheen, Democrat of New Hampshire, Maggie Hassan.
And what I found, here's a tidbit.
Ketanji Brown Jackson had ancestors who were slaves, while her husband, Patrick Jackson, had ancestors who were slaveholders.
Well, you know, in some ways, that's America right there, which is to say that the past doesn't define the present.
Here's Ketanji Jackson. She's a marriage guy.
She's descended from slaves.
He's descended from slaveholders.
So in a way, that's a measure of racial progress.
Look how far the country has come.
But what do you make of this business with Trump?
Apparently, Trump's family didn't come to the U.S. until slavery was ended.
So there's no way That's unbelievable.
Yeah, and I'm sure that...
It's so cool. Oh, they're not...
And this is Fox News reporting.
CNN, MSNBC, all of the other networks are never going to say...
They've downplayed this in part because, think about it, even in a small way, they don't want to give any exoneration.
They don't want to say, of all the president says, one guy wasn't a center-room slave, and that happens to be Trump.
So we thought it'd be good for him.
The one that they've painted as the most racist, right?
Right, ironically. Which, of course, he's not...
Hey, you tend to be my source for updates on the Brian Koberger murder case.
This is the case, of course, in Idaho of the murdered students.
What's the latest? So he is apparently, his team, his lawyers defense team, are asking the court, they're saying that there's a lot of information that they still don't have from the prosecution.
And I'm just afraid that the prosecution is going to botch this, as some prosecutions do.
Yes, OJ Simpson, I'm afraid they're going to OJ Simpson this, because what's happening basically is that they're saying, hey, this is, you know, this is not a fair trial. It's not gonna be a fair trial because Brian Koberger is getting too much publicity. People are already saying that he's guilty because, you know, they came out not too long ago and they said that there is absolute I.e., O.J. Simpson. That his DNA was on that sheath that they found in that bedroom.
So there's no one else on earth that it could have belonged to but him.
Right? I mean, think about it.
That alone would seem to be enough for a conviction.
Just because Koburger could have said, Well, listen, I was at a party.
I stopped by the room.
My DNA is in there for some other reason.
But if your DNA is on the sheath of the knife...
then it's pretty hard to talk your way out of that one.
Yeah, and so Ann Taylor is his defense attorney and she basically is seeking records from investigators, phone records and all of that, because she's saying that he absolutely had nothing to do with these four people, like that they didn't even connect, they didn't know each other, none of that.
So that to me further confirms that this dude was in that room, because if he did have a connection to these people, they could argue that, well, you know what?
He was in that bedroom.
Maybe perhaps he dated that girl.
Who knows? And so that's why his DNA would be in that house.
But to say he had absolutely no connection to these people, he didn't know them, they didn't know him, and then his DNA is found...
It's very interesting that they would go for that kind of a defense because you'd think that'd be a difficult defense to make.
I would have thought that they'd be exploring other ways of defending him.
One, of course, being he didn't know them.
That's a possibility. I mean, the other would be to basically admit that he did it and try to offer some explanation like he was not in his right mind or that he suffers from psychosis.
So, in other words, you make that kind of a defense Kind of like the Menendez brothers, if you remember, they initially were like, we didn't kill our parents.
We had nothing to do with it. And then when later the proof became obvious, oh, my parents molested me.
So that was an effort to regroup and now acknowledge you got the evidence on me.
You got the good. So now let me come up with some possible reason why I did it.
Yeah. But you're saying that they seem to be going for a clean...
They do. That you got the wrong guy.
Exactly. Exactly.
And the other thing, too, that is kind of in question here...
Is whether or not they're going to have cameras in the courtroom.
The judge right now is saying that if his name is District Judge John Judge.
Judge Judge will be delivering his verdict shortly.
Anyway, the cameras, because he doesn't want cameras focused on co-worker.
So, in other words, I think they want to just see what his facial expressions are.
Oh, the close up.
Exactly. So if cameras are allowed in the courtroom, which we don't know if they're going to be, but if they are, the judge wants kind of an aerial view of the courtroom and never, ever, like remember of OJ, they would always show OJ and they'd show all his defense and all.
No, they don't want that.
They don't want it to show his face.
So what they might end up doing is they might end up allowing just one or two cameras with the feed available to others, but they don't want the circus of 200 cameras.
Well, you know I'm going to be watching the circus.
Well, it's going to be a circus for sure.
And again, we don't really know how this will play out, but thanks for the update.
And guys, we're away soon.
See you on the 10th of July.
Is that our day back? No, day back.
Okay, happy 4th of July and see you on the 10th.
Subscribe to the Dinesh D'Souza podcast on Apple, Google, and Spotify.
▲
Export Selection