All Episodes
Previous Next
July 12, 2023 - Dinesh D'Souza
50:19
DESANTIS’ NEXT MOVE Dinesh D’Souza Podcast Ep619
| 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, I'll talk about what I think DeSantis' next move ought to be.
And I'll argue that this is a good move both for Trump and for DeSantis.
I'll provide an update on the Trump classified documents case.
I also want to examine whether affirmative action creates a mismatch between minority beneficiaries and the colleges that admit them with lower grades and test scores.
Dr. Ashley Lucas, founder of PhD Weight Loss, joins me.
We're going to talk about her brand new podcast and explain how you can actually lose weight and don't have to join the fat affirmation movement.
Hey, if you're watching on Rumble or listening on Apple, Google, or Spotify, 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.
What next for Ron DeSantis?
This may seem like an odd question to ask, but it seems pretty clear over the last several weeks that even with all these indictments coming down, Trump continues to stand and surge and remain very strong.
Very dominant. It's hard to see at this point how Trump could be easily elbowed aside.
It might be that some of the candidates who got into the race thought, well, Trump is going to be so badly bruised by this legal process that he's not going to be a viable candidate.
And maybe there are some people who don't think that Trump can win the general election, but it seems that Republican voters are sticking with Trump.
And that puts DeSantis, who's A strong number two, in other words, is clearly ahead of all the others.
In fact, probably has as much as the others all put together.
Nikki Haley, Mike Pence, Chris Christie, Asa Hutchinson, Vivek Ramaswamy, etc.
But nevertheless, DeSantis is still measurably behind Trump.
And his efforts to sort of close that gap have not really been very successful.
Now, Ironically, while DeSantis is in that position, he's been putting out some policy papers.
There's one in immigration that I've been reading, and I gotta say, it's excellent.
I mean, think about it. First of all, DeSantis is taking up a Trump issue.
This shows that DeSantis is not trying to run as some kind of establishment guy, as some people try to portray Trump.
He's reflecting in his policies the MAGA spirit.
And the emphasis here is on detail.
So DeSantis says, number one, he says, I'm going to allow the use of deadly force against people who try to cut through border structures and come across.
So that's a very specific point.
I'm going to stop them no matter what.
U.S. courts, by the way, have held that immigration is a federal responsibility.
Recently, the Supreme Court, 8 to 1, said, listen, this is not a matter for Texas to decide.
This is a matter for the federal government.
They are the ones that police the national border.
And DeSantis is like, listen, I will take that responsibility seriously.
And, quote, you're going to see a huge, huge reduction in the number of people who are going to try to do this.
And... And DeSantis goes into chapter and verse.
He talks about how he will do it.
And he also talks about ending birthright citizenship.
So the idea is that, hey, if you stroll across the border, have your kid over here, oh, I was born in the United States.
No, says DeSantis, that's not going to do the trick.
This kind of gimmick is not going to work anymore.
DeSantis also has a plan to wage war on the weaponized DOJ, and that too has a lot of aspects to it.
But again, concrete proposals, one of which, by the way, is to smash up the DOJ, including the FBI, and decentralize it.
See, a lot of the problem with the FBI is that while the field offices are trying to do responsible work, They're being driven by a corrupt, ideologically motivated D.C. field office that kind of is the quarterback of the entire team.
It's running the FBI from a centralized sort of node center.
And DeSantis is like, down with the node center.
We're going to basically send this spinning, and we're going to have an FBI that is local police officers doing their job with Washington, D.C., just being one among others.
You've got a Denver field office?
You've got a D.C. field office, you've got a Boston field office, and so on.
Now, I saw an interview with NBC News in which DeSantis said, in effect, I do not want to be Trump's number two.
In fact, he said, if offered, I would decline.
He says, I'm not a, something to the effect of, I'm not a number two kind of guy.
I totally understand.
I mean, he's the chief executive officer of the state of Florida, so in that sense, he is the boss.
He is running things that way, and he clearly is an effective CEO. But the simple truth of it is, when you go from being the boss of a medium-sized corporation—in this case, a corporation called the state of Florida— To wanting to be an official, the CEO of a very large company, in this case the company called the United States of America, you have to realize that it may not happen in one step.
Sometimes the CEO of a mid-sized company becomes the vice president of a big company before then becoming the president and CEO. And that's kind of the path I'm suggesting.
I'm thinking out loud.
I'm not advising Trump or DeSantis.
I'm just thinking out loud and saying, it seems to me to make sense We're good to go.
By Trump, to scowl on the sidelines, to become a kind of sniper at the Trump campaign, and then to sulk and wait for his chance the next time around.
It seems to me much wiser and better for DeSantis to say, all right, listen, I don't want to be second fiddle, but I'm willing to be second fiddle as I await my chance, which is after all coming.
DeSantis is the next generation.
He's not even, in that sense, he's not even a peer of Trump's.
Trump This is Trump's last gasp.
It's his last time around the block, and it seems pretty clear that the GOP base has decided he's our guy.
And so, part of democratic wisdom is recognizing, well, this is what the people are telling me, and while I want to be their leader, I have to listen to them as much as I want to be able to lead them.
So, my... Hope here is that there will be some sort of a treaty, a rapprochement, an agreement, a coming together, a unity ticket on the Republican side in which Trump and DeSantis find a way to put aside personal differences and combined forces.
Mike Lindell invented MyPillow 20 years ago.
He's now sold over 80 million MyPillows.
Wow! And to celebrate their anniversary, Mike Lindell and the MyPillow employees want to thank each and every one of you by giving you the lowest price on his Giza Elegance MyPillows.
You can get a queen-size Giza Elegance MyPillow for $19.98.
Regular price $69.98 and just $10 more for a king size.
Go to MyPillow.com to get Mike's amazing offer on the Giza Elegance MyPillows or call 800-876-0227 and use promo code Dinesh.
The offer comes with a 10-year warranty so you know it's going to last and a 60-day money-back guarantee so you have nothing to lose.
It's time to start getting the quality sleep we not only want but need.
Go to MyPillow.com or call 800-876-0227.
Use promo code Dinesh to take advantage of Mike Lindell's special offer on his Giza Elegance MyPillow.
That number again, 800-876-0227.
Don't forget to use the promo code DineshDinesh.
Lawyers for Donald Trump have filed a motion with the judge, this is judge Eileen Cannon in Southern Florida, asking that the Trump trial, the Trump case, in the classified documents matter, be moved to after the 2024 election. And the left, of course, is howling and going,
this is horrible, we can't let this happen, the judge should never agree to this.
And Trump is just trying to set it up so that even if he is found guilty, if he wins the election, he's like, big deal, I can pardon myself. Or he has handpicked officials in the Justice Department and so on, who are now managing the case. So from the left's point of view, it is grossly unfair to allow Trump to push this trial back.
The argument of the Trump lawyers is, hey, we're really getting into a serious election season.
And what is an election if not partisan?
It's divisive.
You've got rival candidates, and we're in the very odd position of one political party, the Democrats, who are in power and in charge of the executive branch.
Basically, hauling the opposition candidate, Trump, into court and trying to get him on crimes and trying to lock him up and trying to prevent him in that sense from conducting his campaign and putting his case before the American people.
So essentially, Trump is saying that's undemocratic.
And not only is it undemocratic, but it is also a threat to a free and fair trial.
A trial is supposed to be a kind of dispassionate matter.
It should be removed from the precincts of the vicissitudes of public opinion.
You don't want howling ideologues in the jury.
You want people to basically look at, here's a case, here's the law, here's what Trump did.
Let's look at what other people also similarly situated did.
And Trump is saying, where does the atmosphere realistically to have that kind of deliberation, that kind of assessment by a jury of my peers, where does that exist before the election?
It really doesn't.
So that's an important consideration before the judge, and she will have to make a ruling on this.
By the way, the Justice Department and the Biden regime wants to have the trial later in the fall, the fall of this year.
And there's a very interesting article by Alan Dershowitz, the famous lawyer, former Harvard Law School professor.
And his point is that while Trump has been trying his best to get good attorneys, his job is made much more difficult by the fact that the left is intimidating attorneys who have anything to do with Trump.
There's a group called the 65 Project, and its goal is to make complaints against Trump lawyers to the relevant state bars and try to have these lawyers sanctioned or disbarred or have their reputations or their careers ruined.
And Alan Dershowitz goes, this is so bad that when he, Alan Dershowitz, offered to defend pro bono lawyers that the 65 Project goes after, the 65 Project began to go after him.
And recently, says Dorschowitz, he's been talking to some Florida lawyers.
And Trump, of course, because the case is in Florida, needs to get Florida lawyers.
It's simply a matter of a good practice to have lawyers in the state that you're litigating because they're more familiar with local practices.
In some cases, they have familiarities with the judge.
They know the attorneys on the other side.
And so it brings you some value to That you wouldn't have if you just parachute somebody in from out of town.
But, says Dorshowitz, I've been talking to some prominent Florida lawyers and they're like, I don't really want to get involved with the Trump business because these people are going to go after me.
And Dorshowitz goes, wait, what?
What we have here is a certain kind of McCarthyism.
In fact, he says in the article, the threats to the lawyers are greater...
Then at any time since McCarthyism, and he goes, listen, I lived through the McCarthy era.
He goes, it's not a stretch.
And he says in the 1950s, there were civil liberties lawyers who were attacked and accused of being communists because they would defend civil liberties.
And this McCarthyite spirit has now migrated to the left.
It's the left, which was once the victim of it, that is now using it against the Trumpsters.
Dershowitz concludes his article by pointing to what he calls the John Adams standard.
And what he's referring to here is that John Adams, think of it, the prominent John Adams, the second president of the United States after George Washington.
John Adams was attacked because he defended British soldiers who had been accused of the Boston Massacre.
And not only did he defend them, but he got them off.
He was able to show that they were not guilty of the charges launched against them, even though there was a powerful kind of, you could say, mob spirit and even a patriotic spirit against these Britishers.
John Adams' point is they deserve to have lawyers.
They deserve to be well represented.
I'm going to represent their case.
And in fact, he represented their case successfully.
This, as Alan Dorshowitz, is, quote, a symbol of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel.
So we're seeing very troubling.
I've talked in the past about assaults on free speech, on freedom of conscience, on freedom of assembly, on the equal protection of the laws.
We often miss this one, which is the right, when you are accused of a crime, to be able to secure counsel, to have lawyers represent you in And it is this right that the left is now trying to put in jeopardy, at least when it comes to lawyers who are defending one Donald J. Trump.
Aches and pains can really ruin your day, so you need a remedy and we have one for you.
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's a true believer.
She can now do the exercises that for a long time she wasn't able to do.
So Relief Factor has been a real 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.
I want to talk today about a story by the Russian writer Anton Chekhov.
That kind of throws a light on the true nature of patriarchy.
Now, we often hear from the left and from feminists about the evil patriarchy that ruled the world.
But what was this patriarchy actually like?
Is it really the case that men sort of called the shots?
Even in traditional society, we see from Chekhov, patriarchy isn't what it's portrayed to be.
And we see this in a story that's called An Upheaval.
Very simple title, which begins with a woman, a young girl named Mashanka.
It says she's finished her studies at a boarding school, and she's now a governess in a sort of rich man's house.
And she's coming home, and she finds the household is kind of in turmoil.
The madam, which is Madam Kushkin, this is the woman who's the kind of matron of the house, she's in a fit, most likely, or else she's quarreled with her husband, thinks Mashanka, the young girl.
She finds that as she gets to the house, everything is sort of in chaos, and she sees the master of the house, a guy named Nikolai Sergeyevich, quote, He's twitching all over and he kind of runs through the hallway and he says, Oh, horrible, tactless, stupid, barbarous, abominable.
But she doesn't know, Mashanka doesn't, what's going on?
So she goes to her room and then we have this beautiful line from Chekhov.
And then for the first time in her life, it was her lot to experience in all its acuteness, the feeling that is so familiar to persons in dependent positions who eat the bread of the rich and powerful and cannot speak their mind.
Why? Because Mashanka sees that there's a kind of search going on in her room.
There's the lady of the house, this woman named Fedosya.
And this check-up describes her as a stout, broad-shouldered, uncouth woman with thick black eyebrows, a faintly perceptible mustache, and red hands.
And she is standing there, and she seems to be rummaging through something.
And then when she sees the young girl, Mashanka, she's surprised, and she leaves the room.
And then Mashanka goes, what was she doing?
What was the mistress of the house doing?
Turns out she was looking through Mashanka's work bag.
And then Mashanka, who's a very kind of detailed type of person, looks around and sees that the drawers in her room have been pulled out a little bit.
She sees that the money box in which she puts the few kopecks that she earns is open.
They opened it and they didn't quite know how to shut it, so the money box is open.
Her linen basket, she noticed, has been tampered with.
The linen is folded, but it wasn't folded the way she folded it, so she's like, something is going on.
So she asks a maidservant, hey, Lisa, she says, you don't know why they've been rummaging in my room?
And Lisa goes, mistress lost a brooch worth $2,000.
Yeah, but why are they rummaging in my room?
And then the maid goes, in effect, because a brooch has been stolen and they're searching everybody, including me, including all the other staff.
And she says, but don't worry, because they looked through everything you have and they didn't find anything.
So you don't have to be afraid.
But of course, for Mashanka, that's not the point.
She goes, what right had she to suspect me and to rummage in my things?
And then the maid says,"'You are living with strangers, miss.
Though you are a young lady, still you are, as it were, a servant.'" It's not like living with your papa and mama.
And so the poor girl throws herself on the bed and begins to sob.
She thinks of herself,"'I'm educated.
I'm refined.'" I'm the daughter of a teacher, and here I'm being, quote, searched like a streetwalker.
That's Chekhov's phrase.
And then she feels the vulnerability of this.
My parents are far away.
What can I do?
They can't come and help me.
Here I am in the capital of this province.
I don't have any friends.
I don't have any family.
So, in a sense, they can do whatever they want with me.
And at this very moment, they call, dinner's ready, dinner's ready.
So, she reluctantly goes to dinner.
Where her husband, the mistress of the house, the husband is assuring her, let's forget about the brooch.
Don't worry about it.
It's upsetting you. It's affecting your health.
And then the woman of the house erupts and says, it's not the 2000 I regret, I can't put up with thieves in my house.
And then the master of the house, I put the word master in quote marks, goes, what need was there to search her room? He knows how much this has upset Mashenka, how out of place it was. And then Fedosia, the wife, goes, I don't say she took the brooch, but you, can you answer for her?
To tell the truth, I haven't much confidence in these learned paupers.
You get the idea here that she doesn't have a high opinion of these people who have been to school and know how to read and write.
And she goes, the wife goes, all I know is I've lost my brooch.
And I will find the brooch.
She smashes her hand on the table.
And she says, eat your dinner to her husband.
Don't interfere in what doesn't concern you.
And then we get to the remarkable climax of the story where the poor girl goes back to her room and is sort of very disconsolate.
She's thinking of going back home.
She's like, I cannot live in a place where I'm distrusted in this way.
And then there's a timid knock on the door and it's the husband.
And he comes in and he goes, why don't you stay?
You know, nothing's going to happen to you.
You didn't take the brooch.
And she goes, I know I didn't take the brooch, but what right do they have to search me?
And then the husband unbelievably confesses that he took the brooch.
He stole his own wife's brooch, but he didn't really steal it because here's what he says.
He goes, I need money and she won't give it to me.
He says, it was my father's money that bought this house and everything.
You know, it's all mine and the brooch belonged to my mother.
It's all mine and she took it, took possession of everything.
So the bottom line of it is you've got here a husband who is not, in any way, the ruler of his own house.
His wife dominates.
She tells him what to do. She yells, Stop!
Get out of here! Don't bring this up!
Eat your dinner! And so this is a guy who's, in a sense, a prisoner in his own house.
And he begs of the young girl.
He goes, If you go, there won't be a human face left in the house.
It's terrible. But she does go.
And Mashanka shook her head, says Chekhov, and with a wave of her hand, he went out, the husband went out, and half an hour later, she was on her way.
So ironically, you've got the girl who's poor, but nevertheless, she is strong-minded, she's strong-willed, she has a sense of pride, she's in that sense free, and the husband of the house, the great patriarch, the ruler of the household, isn't really.
When economic times are rocky as they are now, we need a good game plan.
The debt ceiling crisis is now at a head.
The administration wants to force more government spending.
They've got a settlement to get the deal done.
But look at the national debt, which continues to skyrocket.
So 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 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.
You'll get a 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.
Again, get the process started.
Text Dinesh to 989898 today.
The New York Post is known for covering topics that you don't really see anywhere else.
And I saw an article that made me look twice that is titled, Dinosaurs coexisted with human ancestors, paleobiologists say.
And, um, I know a fair amount.
I'm no, um, biologist, but I've done quite a bit of reading in evolutionary biology and I, I, a little part of me was like, this is absurd.
This makes no sense at all.
Uh, Human beings have been on the Earth for a decent amount of time.
If you look at humans, including proto-humans and the kind of caveman stage before really any recorded history and so on, you could say that human beings have been around for 100,000 years, something like that.
But wait a minute.
Dinosaurs existed...
Well, they existed hundreds of millions of years ago, but 66 million years ago, the dinosaurs went extinct.
So, what sense does it make to say that humans coexisted with dinosaurs?
Well, when you read the article that the New York Post is referring to, it's an article in Current Biology, That's the name of the publication.
It turns out that no, the authors are not saying, in fact, it makes no sense to say that you had humans in the sense that we recognize humans with two legs and two arms and human faculties and human moral sense and...
And human survival capabilities, no, the humans in that sense were not around at the time of the dinosaurs.
So what are we talking about?
Well, it turns out we're just talking about the fact that there was some ancestor of humans, possibly a placental mammal, that did coexist with the dinosaurs.
Well, what would that mammal have looked like?
The researchers who write in Current Biology go, we have no idea.
Because we're not talking about anything that resembles humans at all.
We're talking about some pre-human ancestor that was around when the dinosaurs were around.
Now, this to me is obviously true.
And why is it obviously true?
At least if you accept the evolutionary narrative, which I accept in large part.
It's not that I don't have any critiques of it, but I think in general it's true.
And by the way, I don't think it contradicts the Bible in any way.
But it has to be that if we are now, there were some ancestors, some ancestral creatures that formed the line that ultimately led to human beings.
Think about this question. I don't know if anyone's ever asked you, but how many of your ancestors died in childbirth?
What turns out, if you think about it, none.
They couldn't have, because if any of your ancestors had died in childbirth, you wouldn't be here.
Your ancestors had to have lived and had children in order for the ancestral line to be preserved.
And by the same logic, if you believe that God created life at one time, Using the same materials, using the same, if you will, DNA, using the same code, using some of the same physical materials.
If God did that, then it turns out that there would have to be some sort of ancestor that would later lead to humans that was around at the time of the dinosaurs.
By the way, the dinosaurs were destroyed.
Most people think because an asteroid or some sort of large object like that hit the Earth, producing a mass extinction, but not an extinction of all life, because there were small animals, which, by the way, were dominated by the dinosaurs in the beginning,
but when the dinosaurs were all killed off, those smaller animals then flourished and multiplied, and, of course, there weren't dinosaurs around to eat them, and one of those turns out to be our human ancestor— Not a human being, but some kind of creature that may ultimately through the great divinely ordained framework of time lead to us.
Debbie and I are eating better this year.
We've lost a bunch of 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.
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.
It's recommended to be paired with this 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 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. Guys, I'm thrilled to welcome to the podcast Dr.
Ashley Lucas. She's the founder of PhD Weight Loss, and you've heard me talk about PhD weight loss on the podcast.
She holds a PhD in sports nutrition and chronic disease.
She's also a registered dietitian.
And she's a nationally renowned speaker and columnist who has now started a new podcast.
It's called the Dr.
Ashley Show podcast.
The website, drashleyshow.com.
And of course, PhD Weight Loss is myphdweightloss.com.
Ashley, welcome to the podcast.
Thanks for joining me.
Debbie and I, I gotta say, are really thrilled with PhD Weight Loss.
We had... We had gained a rather embarrassing amount of weight under COVID. It kind of crept up on us.
In fact, since we look at each other every day, we didn't really fully notice the extent of the damage.
And then when PhD came along, we were like, we got to do it.
And between February and now, I mean, I've lost 25 or so pounds, Debbie.
How much, honey? About 23 or 24 pounds.
So we both finally reached this place that you call maintenance.
So I thought I'd start by asking you about these two phases of the program, the first one being losing weight and the second one, which I think perhaps just as important, holding on to the weight that you, or staying with the weight that you've now achieved.
Yeah, you're exactly right.
I think maintenance is the most important part.
It's where the work comes into play.
Of course, we're helping and guiding you.
But the first phase is to drop the weight.
And so how we help folks do that, just like we did with you and Debbie, is we create a customized meal plan guiding you on exactly what, when, and how much to eat.
So we take all the guesswork out of it.
And we can help folks no matter what their schedule is, like you all travel a lot, you're very busy, and a lot of people are like that.
And so having a specific meal plan that gives you those guidelines where you know what to do, you know how to dine out or take out, and then throughout that phase having your weekly one-on-one coaching like you guys did with your coach Rachel.
And that's a huge component of success because it holds you accountable, but you also get to ask questions as you're going through.
So you're learning exactly what you're doing and why you're eating that specific way.
So we taught you guys a lot about nutrition, but unconventional, right?
Not the normal stuff you've been taught.
Understanding that it's much more complicated than calories in and calories out and just eating everything in moderation.
And so that's what we focus on during the weight loss phase.
The maintenance phase, once we get your body where it needs to be and you've dropped all that belly fat, which we can talk about in a little bit if you want to, but maintenance is free for us.
It's forever. We never abandon our clients because like we just said, it's where the work is to be done.
That's where you need the support and the accountability.
So our maintenance clients do great in keeping the weight off.
And they have unlimited support from us through texting or calls, whatever they really need.
I remembered one of the early calls with Rachel, the nutritionist that you mentioned.
I was like, well, you know, you've put out a lot of good ideas and do I need to follow these like to the letter?
And she's like, yes, you do.
You need to take this like a doctor's prescription and just do what we say.
And I think that's really what Debbie and I did.
We just sort of, we said to ourselves, we're going, you know, we're kind of in the canoe.
We're now going to follow the rules.
And we just saw the results very dramatic.
Now, many Americans have been sort of at this weight loss thing for years, if not decades.
And there's this kind of weary sense, I've tried this, I've tried that.
It doesn't seem to work.
I lose weight. I then gain it back.
What would you say is the number one reason why so many people are frustrated in their...
I mean, it's not they don't attempt to do it.
They want to lose weight.
It just doesn't work for them.
Why is that? There's two reasons.
One is that the method is just antiquated.
It's all based on restricting calories and moving more, which is unsustainable and the body is more complicated.
That's why we really create a metabolic shift.
That's what we did for you.
We focused on some foods and we let go of some others for the time being, like your bananas that you love so much.
But we did that because there are certain foods that drive specific hormones.
And some of these hormones encourage hunger and cravings and inflammation and joint pain.
And a lot of people eat these foods when they want to drop weight and it's not conducive to the process.
And so that's why it does take...
An outside perspective based on science to figure out what are those foods that might be termed healthy that we think are healthy but really aren't like the bananas, for example, for you.
They just didn't work.
And when we were reducing those or letting those go, you were seeing, you know, three pounds of weight gone each week.
And so it's just little things like that.
So it really does come down to what you're eating and when and really basing this off of science, not conventional wisdom.
And then the second reason why people often drop weight only to put it back on is because they don't fully collapse the belly fat.
So this belly fat, which we call visceral fat, Is actually really active.
We know these fat cells secrete hormones that make you hungry, that make you crave, that slow your metabolism and make you lazy.
Like, you actually are getting fat because you have this belly fat in there.
And a lot of people just pick some kind of ambiguous number that they want to drop.
Like they say, oh, it'd be really great if I could drop 20 pounds.
When really they have 50 pounds of belly fat in there that they need to get rid of.
And if you think of this belly fat almost like a tumor, it acts the same way.
It secretes hormones and it has one objective.
And that objective is to get as fat as possible, as fastest as possible.
Then it's like fighting against this tumor.
And people will only drop a portion of the excess fat weight and that's like shaving the top off of a weed and leaving the root.
You know what's gonna happen to a weed if the root is in there.
It's going to grow back. And so a lot of people, if they only drop a portion of this excess fat weight, it comes back on.
They're like at a 97% risk of gaining the weight no matter what they've done and attempted to drop it in the first place.
Let's take a pause when we come back more with Dr.
Ashley Lucas, founder of PhD Weight Loss.
It's myphdweightloss.com is the website.
I'll be right back. Debbie and I made a New Year's resolution.
Let's lose some weight. And thankfully, PhD weight loss came to our rescue.
Debbie's lost 24 pounds.
I've lost 27. We are now both officially on maintenance.
The program is based on science and nutrition.
No injections, no pills, no long hours in the gym, no severe calorie restriction, just good, sound, scientifically proven nutrition.
It's so simple. They make it easy by providing 80% of your food at no additional cost.
They tell you when and what to eat.
And guess what? You can do this without ever being hungry.
The founder, Dr. Ashley Lucas, hey, I'm talking to her right now, has her PhD in chronic disease and sports nutrition.
She's a registered dietitian.
She helps people lose weight and most important, maintain that weight loss for life.
So are you ready? If you want to take the step of losing weight like Debbie and I have, call PHD Weight Loss and Nutrition at 864-644-1900.
You can also find them online at myphdweightloss.com.
The number again to call, 864-644-1900.
It's time. I'm back with Dr.
Ashley Lucas, founder of PhD Weight Loss and also now host of the Dr.
Ashley Show podcast. The website is drashleyshow.com.
Ashley, you were making an important and critical point about belly fat because I remember I had gotten to 195 pounds and was kind of afraid I was sliding toward 200 and so on.
When we had our first calls, I was like, look, I'll be pretty happy with about 175, 176.
That's kind of where I was in my early 40s and so on.
And I think you told me that, you know, it's not a matter of where you kind of feel like being because you need to knock out the belly fat because it's going to make your job with maintenance a lot easier.
And I mean, I'm now under 170 and I totally see the value of that.
I think for me, perhaps the biggest eye-opener of being part of the program is realizing the fallacy of low-fat.
Because we have so much low-fat stuff, low-fat yogurt, low-fat milk, and a lot of people feel,''I'm eating low-fat, why am I not losing weight?'' And I think part of what you've taught me and Debbie, both of us, is that it's not really about the fat.
The fat itself is not the problem.
It's the carbs and it's the sugar.
Yeah, that's right. So, yeah, we think low-fat, vegan, vegetarian, all of these things we've told we need to do to be healthy.
It's more difficult than that.
This is just a quick example, but oat milk, for example, came out.
And we're like, oh my gosh, oat milk is the healthiest thing.
It's dairy-free.
It's vegan. Just go enjoy your oat milk.
Well, now we know that if you drink oat milk, it spikes insulin, which is a fat storage, inflammatory hormone, nine times a More rapidly than regular cow's milk.
And cow's milk is actually pretty darn full of sugar because if you think about the purpose of cow's milk, it's for a baby calf that's in growth mode.
And the majority of us, especially if we want to drop weight, we don't want to be in growth mode.
So here, actually the best milk, if I were to give you a tip or the best cow's Creamer to add to your coffee is just basic, real heavy cream.
It's personally my favorite food, but heavy cream is great and it has a lot of fat in it.
So like you were saying, most people would avoid that heavy cream thinking that it's quote-unquote fattening when actually it doesn't spike your insulin, it doesn't cause a glucose high, which we could go into causes a lot of negative health consequences, and it's the best food.
So if you take one tip from this today is To try some delicious, real heavy cream and enjoy your coffee with it.
Hey, Debbie wants to duck in and say hi because she's just so thrilled with how things have been going for her.
I am. Hi, Debbie. And I just want to say thank you for giving me my life back because I cannot believe that I'm able to wear some of the clothes that I haven't been able to wear in 10 years.
And I really never thought that I would see this dramatic weight loss.
And not only that, we were on vacation last week, and I actually lost a pound while I was on vacation.
I love to hear that. I just love you.
Thank you so much.
Thanks, Debbie. You know, I think the point here, and Debbie is like a good example of this, is that You talk about the fact that you are retraining your brain a little bit.
That the brain is part of what plays a role in weight loss because you just come to understand.
I mean, in my case with bananas, for example, I would literally not hesitate to eat three or four a day.
Okay. Right. And now I realize it's not that I can have a banana.
It's just that I've got to be more measured about it.
If I have a banana on Monday, I may have the next one on Wednesday or Thursday, and I'm not going to eat three at a time.
So my brain has adjusted to a sort of new reality, and I don't feel really deprived.
In fact, I feel like I'm at a good weight, and I'm much happier with it than I was before.
So talk about the mental factor here.
So much comes into the mental factor.
80% of it comes from the mind.
And a few things there. One, we in society think that eating healthy is boring, right?
It's not very sexy.
It's not satiating.
And it's kind of linked to deprivation and restriction, like you said.
When really eating unhealthy is the deprivation, that's where you're depriving yourself of what you want.
You want for your life energy and vitality and a clear mind.
You especially need to be able to think clearly and quickly on your feet.
You've got to have strong mental clarity and focus.
So we need to change our mindset around what eating healthy means.
Eating healthy is the reward.
It's the reward that you get as a result of energy and vitality and a long life and not having brain degeneration and needing to be on some experimental drug because you don't think about what the food does later.
You just think about the enjoyment of it now.
So we have to think about what's controlling our mentality.
Is it the four-year-old that says, gosh, I just want this because I deserve it or because it tastes good?
Or is it the CEO of our life that's managing it, thinking about the later and thinking about really what does eating healthy give us?
It gives us so many good things.
And actually, there's a lot of research showing that how we think about food actually impacts our body physiology.
So there was a study out there that looked at folks who consumed a milkshake and there were two groups.
One group was told that the milkshake was moderate calorie health shake.
And then there was another group that was told the same shake was like this indulgent, delicious 600 calorie milkshake.
And this was done by Dr.
Crum out of Stanford.
And she found that the group that was told they were given the indulgent milkshake felt like, oh gosh, I'm satiated.
That was delicious. And they measured the hunger hormone in the body and the hunger hormone dropped.
So it was saying like the hunger hormone was saying, I don't need to be there.
You're full. Whereas the other group who consumed the 300 calorie milkshake that they were told, a health shake, We're good to go.
That's why at PhD, we focus so much on mindset and how we're thinking and feeling and the stories that we're telling ourselves.
Hey guys, check out the Dr.
Ashley Show podcast.
Drashleyshow.com is the website.
If you want to sign up for PhD Weight Loss, if you need to lose weight and want to lose weight, this is the way to do it.
MyPhDWeightLoss.com is the website.
Ashley, always a pleasure.
Great to have you on the podcast.
Thank you so much for having me and congratulations, you guys.
I'm excited for you. Thank you. I want to talk about a very interesting aspect of the affirmative action ruling by the Supreme Court, a fantastic ruling essentially obliterating racial and ethnic preferences in higher education with possible reverberations even into the workforce and all
kinds of other race intoxicated programs that we have in this country today. But the aspect I want to talk about was discussed both by Justice Thomas and by Justice Sotomayor. It's called the mismatch theory, the mismatch theory.
Now, Thomas, in writing about the mismatch theory, treats it as quite obviously true.
And Sotomayor, in talking about the mismatch theory, treats it as discredited, somehow debunked, to use the fashionable phrase.
But I want to talk about what this mismatch theory is and whether Thomas is right or whether Sotomayor is right.
So the mismatch theory says something like this.
Let's assume that I am a young black student who has a B average in high school and in the SAT, the Scholastic Assessment Test, I'm in the 70th percentile.
So I'm an above-average student, but I'm not an outstanding student.
I'm not a great student, and so I apply to a bunch of colleges.
Now, normally, based upon my academic strength and academic preparation, I should get into a mid-level college where I would be competitively matched against my peers and I would do reasonably well.
Why? Because I do have the academic preparation to be able to succeed at that level.
But what happens is because of affirmative action, you have a college like MIT or Cal Tech or Berkeley Which turns away some white or Asian-American student that has vastly better grades and vastly better test scores, but because they want to meet a diversity roster, they want more black students, they go, let's take this guy.
Yeah, he's not that good, but the point is they're taking somebody who is now competitively mismatched.
And the point I want to stress is that we're not talking about a bad student.
We're talking about an average student.
Who, by and large, should go to an average school.
But by going to a school like MIT or Caltech, it's almost like taking a 9th grader who's perfectly fine for the 9th grade, but then sticking him or her into the 12th grade, where suddenly you're up against students who are much stronger, who have learned more, who are at a much more advanced starting point.
So what happens is, you then realize your academic inferiority, you start feeling demoralized, You start doing poorly in class, not just because you're feeling bad, but because you don't actually have the preparation.
You haven't taken the advanced algebra.
You haven't taken introductory calculus.
Your preparation is inadequate for the situation in which you find yourself.
And so what happens?
You do poorly. You drop out.
If you're in law school, you fail the bar exam.
This is the mismatch theory.
So you can see it makes a certain kind of obvious sense.
And it makes an obvious sense because affirmative action does not involve taking students who are slightly worse.
Like, you got two guys, hey, they're pretty much the same.
One guy is just a nose ahead of the other guy.
It's not like that. It's like taking somebody who is markedly behind, cognitively sometimes a year, two years, even three or four years behind academically, and sticking them with students who are much stronger than they are.
Some years ago, in fact, almost 20 years ago now, I guess in the early 2000s, a law professor named Richard Sander published an article in the Stanford Law Review which caused a kind of shock because what he did is he took this mismatch theory and he brought a whole wealth of empirical data to bear on it.
Now, he was focusing not on undergraduate college but focusing on law schools.
And what he was talking about is, again, the fact that, look, it is true that if you make the standards more lenient for, say, blacks, you're going to have more blacks, let's say, at Berkeley Law School.
But the question, says Sanders, is not a simple matter of, do you have more blacks at law school?
Sure, the law school is happy.
They're grinning like Cheshire Catz.
All the blacks we got over here.
But, says Sanders, are these blacks actually going to stay in Berkeley Law School or is a bunch of them going to drop out?
You've got to look at the dropout rate because, after all, those are people.
Think about it. It's not just that those are people who could have succeeded at another law school.
And so what you've done is they're worse off.
You're taking a black kid who could have done really well.
Let's just say at George Washington Law School or Tulane Law School, you've put them into Berkeley Law School.
Now they drop out and they don't even take the bar, or they don't drop out and then they fail the bar, so they don't make it to being a lawyer.
And Sanders' point is if you're trying to measure success, at least in terms of blacks, you've got to look at how many lawyers are produced at the end of the game, not simply how many blacks show up in freshman year.
As first-year law school students at Berkeley Law School.
Now, admittedly, there are some students who will get a preference.
They realize that they're far behind, they work extra hard, they catch up, and they do well.
So it's not that the mismatch applies to every student.
There are some students who get affirmative action, take advantage of those opportunities, and thrive.
But the point is there are a lot of other students, and perhaps the majority...
Who find themselves in a competitively mismatched situation, they would have been better off, if you will, going to a school for which they were fully qualified and for which they had the proper academic preparation.
Subscribe to the Dinesh D'Souza Podcast on Apple, Google, and Spotify.
▲
Export Selection