All Episodes
Previous Next
July 18, 2023 - Dinesh D'Souza
49:11
THE GREAT DECEIVER Dinesh D’Souza Podcast Ep623
| 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 consider Obama's latest statement about book banning and censorship, exposing him once again as the great deceiver.
I'll argue that third parties are generally bad, but the no-labels movement might prove to be a net plus.
I'll review Trump's so-called perfect phone call to Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger.
And Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey joins me.
We're going to talk about an update in the censorship case of Missouri versus Biden.
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.
Barack Obama's back in the news.
He issued a kind of public letter to the, quote, hardworking librarians of America.
And in it, he tries to come out as a major champion of free speech.
He talks about the fact that there are a lot of states that are trying to ban books.
Now, he doesn't specify that they're trying to restrict sexually explicit books with a lot of gay and trans propaganda to being exposed to very young children.
He doesn't say that. In fact, he gives a completely false picture of the kind of books that are being banned.
Quote, Writers like Mark Twain and Toni Morrison, Walt Whitman and James Baldwin taught me something essential about our country's character.
Now, wait a minute. Who's trying to ban Toni Morrison or Mark Twain?
This is absurd. There, by the way, have been some efforts to ban Mark Twain, and guess what?
They've come from the left.
They're because Mark Twain uses the N-word in Huckleberry Finn, so it's like, we can't allow this book to be taught.
But Obama's giving a completely mythical picture here of what's going on.
And then he goes, Today, some of the books that shaped my life and the life of so many others are being challenged by people who disagree with certain ideas or perspectives.
Now, first of all, it's not about disagreement.
We're talking here about books like Gender, Queer.
These are books with highly explicit drawings and pictures.
I mean, you've got... You know, the most explicit sexual depictions in these books.
And they're being taught and they're available in libraries for very young children.
This really is the issue.
And this is the issue that Obama tries to camouflage.
Now, Obama is obsessed with this gay issue, and even if you go back to his presidency, the whole gays in the military, that was under Obama.
So, it seemed odd, because Obama came in as a sort of civil rights guy, first black president, and yet, how many times did he visit inner cities?
Almost none. What concern did he show with the inner city cultural breakdown, broken families, poverty?
Virtually none. But he's been really obsessed with this gay issue.
And I think it's, I mean, think about what he's saying when he goes, these are the books that shaped my life.
I mean, you know, our books about playing with each, you know, people's genitals or putting household objects up your rear end.
This is really what shaped Obama's life.
Well, the weird answer to that question is probably yes.
And I say this, I don't know if you've seen the movie Trump Card, but in that film, I interview a former gay prostitute named Gary Sinclair.
And I won't go into the details of the interview.
He talks about these sexual rendezvous that he had with Obama on two separate occasions involving not only gay sex but drugs.
And you have to assess the credibility of this for yourself.
Obviously, we're talking about a guy who was on the edges of society.
But on the other hand, Larry Sinclair has paid a high price for questioning Obama.
In fact, he had a press conference at the National Press Club when Obama was running.
The media, of course, completely buried the story and if you haven't heard much about it or anything about it, I'm not entirely surprised.
So this is Obama.
He is the great deceiver, not only about his personal life.
There are a lot of aspects of his personal life that remain secret.
Where is his college thesis?
What are his college grades?
A lot of aspects.
Where are the people who knew Obama when he supposedly went to Columbia?
I went to Columbia University. Did you not meet anybody there? Virtually no one has come forward who was in Obama's class or even attended Columbia at the time who even remembers Obama. He was sort of like a ghost at the university. And think of how odd that is for somebody like Obama.
So this is a man who is shrouded with secrets. And he's also a deceiver in his public statements because he presents things and he does it with such kind of passion.
Here he's talking to the library.
In a very sense, you're on the front lines fighting every day to make the widest possible range of viewpoints, opinions, and ideas available to everyone.
Once again, that's not what this debate is about.
Frankly, a lot of it doesn't even involve librarians.
It involves books that are assigned in the classroom or taught in the classroom.
And obviously when you have books that are taught in class, some principle of selection has to go into what books are included and what books are excluded.
So this is not a matter of just censorship, pure and simple.
It's a matter of choosing the books that are appropriate to the particular ages of the children.
It's also about choosing the books that do have real educational value.
So Obama disguises the true nature of the problem, falsely casts this as a simple debate about free speech, when ironically we're living at a time when all the efforts, the predominant efforts at censorship, digital censorship, I'll be talking more about that on today's podcast with my guest Andrew Bailey.
all of this is coming from the left, i.e.
coming from Obama's own side, and with his at least tacit, if not explicit, approval.
Bank failures, record inflation, spy balloons, mass layoffs.
It's a recipe for disaster if your investments are with a typical financial advisor.
But my friend Rebecca Walzer is different.
You've seen her on the podcast.
She has a very canny grasp of the global economy, also of the US economy.
She's a wealth strategist, a tax attorney.
She has a global MBA from the London School of Economics.
Rebecca told her clients to get out of equities back at the end of 2021.
She got it right when most advisors got it wrong.
And who had to pay the price?
Well, you, we did as consumers.
Well, don't let blind loyalty leave you losing money.
Call Rebecca Walzer's office today to protect your wealth from the market uncertainty.
Debbie and I did a call with Rebecca's team to talk about our investments.
We're moving forward and you should too.
Go to friendofdinesh.com to book a call with Rebecca's team.
That's friendofdinesh.com to protect your investments and your future.
There is a possibility that a third party will emerge in the landscape of American politics, and if this really happens it will be a real surprise.
Now, America has been, I won't say since the founding, because when we had the founding, there were no political parties.
Eventually, the ruling group became the Federalist Party, and that happened because Jefferson started a rival party called the Democratic Republican Party.
So going back to 1800, the election of 1800 was the first In a sense, party election between the Federalists and the Democratic Republicans, an election, by the way, that Jefferson won.
And then for about 20 years or so, it was the Federalists versus the Democratic Republicans.
Then the Federalists sort of went out of business, and the Democratic Republicans became the only party, which they were for a little while, and then they split into two, creating basically the Democratic Party under Andrew Jackson.
And then the Whig Party.
And the Whigs and the Democrats were the two rival parties pretty much till the early 1850s when the Republican Party was founded.
The Whig Party lapsed away and disappeared.
And then you had the Democrats and the Republicans.
That's the party structure we've had until now.
Now, there have been individuals that have run as independents and as a third-party ticket.
Think, for example, about Ross Perot in 1992, I believe.
And think also about figures like Ralph Nader, who ran on third-party tickets.
I believe that was in 2000 in the Bush-Gore election.
But the new party that we're talking about is different.
It's called the No Labels Party.
Kind of an interesting title.
And I think it's a response to the polarization of American politics and the claim, the claim that can be examined that somehow the Republicans have moved extreme right and the Democrats have moved extreme left.
Now, I would argue that Republicans have not moved extreme right.
In fact, to the degree that there's even any validity to this claim, the Republicans are responding to the radicalization of the Democrats.
It's kind of like saying that you've got this group of thugs around you that's escalated their level of threats and violence, and so you have responded to it, but that doesn't mean that you have become more radical.
You're merely responding to a new situation that you find yourself in.
Nevertheless, There is a trope and there are people who are not carefully attuned to politics who go along with it.
Oh yeah, the two parties have both become more extreme.
We really need a party in the middle.
So I think that this no labels party is a reaction, is a response to the perception that the parties have become polarized, but it's also a response specifically to two individuals in particular, Donald Trump and Joe Biden.
So once again, there is a belief, and this belief is, you find this across the spectrum, the sense that Trump and Biden are old, they are past their prime, and so we need new faces and new figures in American politics,
and yet it seems almost by a sort of logic of inevitability that Biden is going to be the nominee of the Democrats, Trump is going to be the nominee of the Republicans, and so the idea is that there are many people, and perhaps a majority, That would be willing to support a third party.
Now generally, third party movements emerge, and they tend to emerge more on the Republican side than the Democratic side, and they're generally a really bad thing.
They're a really bad thing for the obvious reason that they split the Republican or the right-leaning vote, and they almost guarantee that the leftist, the Democrat, is going to be the winner.
But there's nothing in the nature of the third party that does that.
It depends on the third party.
So, for example, when Ross Perot ran in 1992, it seems that ultimately he helped Clinton get to the White House.
In other words, he split the Republican vote.
His kind of no-nonsense, tough, militaristic style appealed to some Republicans.
They're like, we don't like Bush.
We're going to go with Perot. And as a result, Clinton kind of oozed his way into the White House.
But the No Labels Party is headed by Joe Lieberman.
You remember Joe Lieberman, a former vice presidential candidate, ultimately left the Democratic Party, became an independent.
And there's a whole bunch of other people involved.
Former, well, Republican, former governor Larry Hogan.
Former North Carolina Governor Pat McCrory, apparently a businessman named John Hope Bryant, civil rights leader Benjamin Chavis.
You might remember he was at one time the head of the NAACP, as I recall.
Now, these guys, Lieberman, who's kind of the spokesman for the group, Said we're not doing this to be spoilers.
In fact, he says that we're not even going to get involved in the 2024 election unless we think we can win.
So his point is that if polls really show that people want an alternative to Trump and to Biden, then they might get in it, but they don't want to sort of help one or the other candidate.
But there are a lot of people on the left and the Never Trump movement that are very worried about this because they feel that this no-labels group, which is, by the way, setting up chapters in various states.
It claims not to be officially a political party, but it's setting up what they call affiliates, which is the prelude generally to starting a party because the affiliates then morph into sort of state party divisions and so on.
So this is a very interesting development.
It's too early to really take it seriously and say this is the impact it's going to have next year.
The impact may be marginal to none, but on the other hand, we're in a very volatile political environment and we could see this third party on the scene.
And in this case, it might actually help the Republicans.
We're in economically rocky waters.
The debt ceiling crisis has come to a head.
The Biden administration is doing its best to force more government spending.
They've got a settlement to get the deal done.
But for now, our national debt continues to skyrocket.
Well, how are you protecting your savings?
Times like these are when concerned savers like me turn to gold.
And I, like thousands of similar-minded people, buy my gold from Birch Gold.
Here's the easiest way to do it.
Birch Gold will help you to 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.
Well, you know what they're buying? Gold.
Follow their lead.
Text Inesh 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.
Again, text Inesh to 989898 today.
I see today that Trump put out a...
Statement in which he says he has been notified that he might be facing another, yes, another indictment.
This is also from Jack Smith, the special counsel, and the indictment would be over somehow inciting January 6th, inciting an effort to overthrow the government, supposedly.
I mean, the whole thing is preposterous and laughable, but nevertheless, it's not laughable in the sense that it is I'm going to talk in more detail about that tomorrow as I dive into it a little bit more.
But today I want to talk about something that I mentioned yesterday and I'm picking up today, and that is the Georgia case, the case involving Trump supposedly trying to interfere with the Georgia election.
And a lot of that focuses specifically on Trump's call, his phone call, with Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger.
I've got a transcript of the call.
The call lasted almost an hour.
Trump was on the call. Mark Meadows, chief of staff.
Cleta Mitchell, an election specialist, was on.
And then from the Georgia side, you had Raffensperger and you had a guy named Germany.
His last name is Germany.
And this was a guy also essentially defending the Raffensperger position and saying that there was no real, no significant fraud in We're good to go.
And I think any reasonable person who looks at this transcript will recognize that Trump is not saying that at all.
What Trump is saying is, we won Georgia by a huge margin, and there's easily more than the 11,000 or 12,000 vote margin of legitimate votes there that he won that he wants Raffensperger to, quote, find.
In other words, locate the authentic votes that That were not counted depriving Trump of his legitimate election victory.
So let me read a few lines from the call that are a fair representation of what Trump is saying on the call.
He says, I think it's pretty clear that we won.
We won very substantially in Georgia.
So start with that. Trump is beginning from the premise, I won Georgia.
We have at least two or three.
Anyway, from 250,000 to 300,000 ballots were dropped mysteriously into the rolls.
We think that if you check the signatures, and he talks about, quote, a couple of hundred thousand forged signatures.
This is people who forged their signature or somebody else who Mr.
X voted for Mr. Y and forged his signature.
Then he goes on to people, Trump talks about people who were told that they couldn't vote because a ballot had already been put in their name.
In other words, somebody already voted my ballot.
I show up to vote. So here Trump is talking about Republicans who wanted to vote for him, but somehow their vote had mysteriously also been cast.
Then he goes on to say, quote, you had 18,325 vacant address voters.
So these are voters. They say, I live at so-and-so property.
You go look over there.
There's no such number.
Or it's a commercial establishment.
Obviously, nobody lives there.
So that's 18,000 votes.
Think of it. That alone is bigger than the margin.
Then he talks about you had out-of-state voters.
They voted in Georgia, but they were from out-of-state.
He talks about some 4,925.
And then he repeats, and I didn't lose the state, Brad.
Then he goes, the other thing, dead people.
So dead people voted.
I think the number is close to 5,000 people.
So, and Trump goes on like this.
What he's doing is he's making his case, and then he summarizes this kind of opening statement by saying, so that's it.
I mean, we have many, many times the number of votes necessary to win the state, and we won the state, and we won it very substantially and easily.
Now, all of this is a way of saying, and the point here is not to—I'm not trying to make the point that all these claims about specific vote totals and the number of dead people are all accurate, because Raffensperger weighs in and says basically, Mr. Trump, we believe you're misinformed.
And this other fellow, Germany, says, no, no, we've looked into that.
We don't think the number's that high, or we think it's a lot lower, or we think the number's insignificant.
But the point is not the merits of whether or not Trump is correct about his specific claims, but simply the fact that Trump is in no way suggesting that he lost the state, but nevertheless he wants Brad Raffensperger as a loyal fellow Republican to quote, find the vote. So this is really what this case is all about.
Is somehow Trump trying to change a legitimate process, change a legitimate count?
Not at all. Let's keep going with the call.
Trump repeats, you know we won the state.
You know when you add them up, it's many more times, it's many more times the 11,779 number.
So Trump won by a much bigger margin.
We have won this election in Georgia based on all this.
And so, as you go through this call, I won this election by hundreds of thousands of votes.
I won the state by hundreds of thousands of votes.
Trump can be kind of repetitive, but I think in this particular case, the repetition is to his benefit.
Why? Because he's saying again and again and again, I won the state.
There are multiple indices pointing to that.
You don't even have to...
The point about the, hey, we just need to find the 11,000 votes is we don't even have to add up all the votes that should be mine.
Even if we look at some of these things, we'll still go easily over the 11,000 number.
That's Trump's point with the so-called find the votes.
You don't have to locate every vote that he got.
You only have to locate enough.
And then Georgia tips over into his column.
So how you can take this and make a case out of it and expect a judge to go along with it and a jury to go along with it, you can only do that if somehow you feel that you own the judicial process and that what you're conducting is not a real trial, but a show trial.
If aches and pains are your problem, Relief Factor is your remedy.
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.
Now, 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 exercises that for a long time she wasn't able to do.
It's been a relief factor, a big game changer for her, her aunt, other members of our family, Mike here in the studio, and for many other people.
You too can benefit. Try it for yourself.
Order the three-week quick start for the discounted price of just $19.95.
Go to relieffactor.com or call 800-4-RELIEF to find out more about this offer.
The number again to call, 800-4-RELIEF or go to relieffactor.com.
feel the difference. Guys, I'm delighted to welcome back to the podcast the Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey, 44th Attorney General of the state of Missouri. He's a combat veteran, father of four, former prosecutor, constitutional conservative, and he is involved in a very important free speech case which is Missouri versus Biden, one that I've talked about and we've talked about together on the podcast. Welcome, Andrew Bailey.
Thanks for joining me. You know, this legal process is a bit of a zigzag because judges issue injunctions that say This is not a final verdict, but this is what can be decided for now And then sometimes that gets appealed.
So can you bring us up to speed on where this case is now and what the next step is?
Yeah, absolutely. And to your point, there's a judicial process that governs the substance of the case.
And the case, every case that's ever filed, it moves.
And so the parties and the court have to move with the case.
And that's in part because you start with a complaint or a petition alleging a claim.
And then as you receive discovery, your claim evolves.
And that's what happened here.
So we're on an amended petition that had 1,400 individually numbered paragraphs with new facts, new allegations, law to support those facts and allegations.
And it was based on the more than 20,000 pages of discovery we obtained from the federal government and the numerous depositions we took.
And so as the case moved, we got to May 26th, where we filed a motion for preliminary injunction.
The federal government responded with a motion to dismiss the case altogether.
And so the court denied the federal government's motion to dismiss, said the case could go forward, that these claims were cognizable, they were legal claims, and that they would, if the evidence was there to support the claims, they would establish a violation of the First Amendment that the Biden administration and the federal government had violated the First Amendment right to free speech.
So we went to court on the motion for preliminary injunction on May 26th and put on evidence.
And that was the evidence we obtained in preliminary discovery, the first phase, preliminary discovery, to get a preliminary injunction.
And the court weighed the evidence and thought through the evidence and analyzed whether an injunction was appropriate.
And then on July 4th, the trial court issued a nationwide preliminary injunction, laying the first brick in a wall of separation between tech and state to protect our First Amendment rights.
Okay, so the court issues an injunction basically saying, we think, based upon what we've seen, that the state of Missouri, and I guess in conjunction with Louisiana, will prevail in this case.
And so we're going to make a decision now to forbid the Biden administration from colluding with these digital platforms.
Now, as I understand it, they fought back against this injunction to ask the judge to put a stay on it to prevent the injunction from going into effect.
And haven't they also decided to appeal the injunction?
Where does that stand? Yeah, that's absolutely right.
So after the July 4th preliminary injunction came down, the Department of Justice filed a notice of appeal and a request that the trial court stay its own motion.
In other words, not implement the injunction until the Court of Appeals weighs in.
This is an interlocutory or kind of midstream appeal.
We're not... Trial court judge said one of the prongs on the analysis for whether or not a preliminary injunction is appropriate is whether or not the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits.
The court found that based on the evidence that we put on it at the hearing that we were likely to succeed on the merits.
And the court order, if you read the injunction, 155 pages long, but the very end is important.
All it says is that... The Biden administration can't coerce and collude with big tech social media to censor core political speech, that speech which is protected by the First Amendment.
Basically, you can't violate the Constitution.
That's all the court order says.
And yet somehow the Department of Justice has the audacity to ask for a stay and to appeal.
They're that dedicated to violating our rights to free speech.
And the trial court analyzed the Department of Justice argument and said, well, the Department of Justice failed to put on any evidence to support the notion that the injunction prohibited lawful activity.
In other words, what are they complaining about?
And so the Department of Justice went up to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and asked for a stay of the trial court order. In other words, asked that the injunction be halted.
And the Court of Appeals said, hey, let's just put pencils down and halt.
The let's stay the injunction at the trial court level until August 10th, when we can have a hearing in front of in front of a three judge panel at the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals over the merits of the preliminary injunction and whether or not it should be stayed pending the remainder of the case. So on August 10th, we'll be back in court at the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans, arguing that the stay is inappropriate.
The injunction is absolutely appropriate based on the evidence deduced.
And really, the injunction is narrowly tailored because all it's saying is don't violate the Constitution.
So, turning to the appeal court and focusing on that for a moment, some of the media reports gave me the idea that the appeals court had sort of reversed the lower court.
But I think what you're saying is that the appeals court merely said, all right, listen, we want to find out more about this.
We want the two parties to come before us.
And so we are going to put a hold on this, but only for a few days until we hear the merits of this injunction, and then we will kind of issue our ruling.
So in that sense, you're probably preparing at this point to go before the appellate court.
Is that correct? That's absolutely right.
Yeah, this is a brief pause until August 10th.
So in the next few weeks, we'll be back in front of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals arguing in favor of the preliminary injunction that that first brick in the wall of separation between tech and state needs to stay in place and be solidly cemented and anchored into the firmament.
And that at the end of the day, the state would be inappropriate.
And again, I'm confident on our likelihood of success.
We're in a very favorable venue.
The Fifth Circuit is...
Close adherence to the plain meaning of the law and to the original understanding of the text of the Constitution.
So we feel like we'll get a favorable panel from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
But also, again, if you look at what the trial court judge said in the injunction, that the government is prohibited from working with social media to censor core political speech.
That's it. It's going to be difficult for the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to say, no, that's okay.
We're okay with the government coercing and colluding big tech social media to violate the Constitution.
So, again, I feel confident in our legal position and our likelihood of success at the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in early August.
Let's take a pause when we come back more with Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey.
It's MyPillow's 20th year anniversary with over 80 million MyPillows sold.
And Mike Lindell at MyPillow wants to thank each and every one of you by giving you the lowest price in history on their MyPillows.
You get a queen-size MyPillow for $19.98.
Regular price. $69.98 and just $10 more for a king size.
You get deep discounts on all the MyPillow products, the MyPillow bedsheets, the mattress toppers, the robes, the pet beds, the mattresses, the MySlippers and so much more.
This is the time to try out some of the other amazing products that you've had your eye on.
Go to MyPillow.com and use promo code Dinesh to get this amazing offer on the queen size MyPillow, $19.98 or call 800-876-0227.
The offer comes with a 10-year warranty, a 60-day money-back guarantee.
You have nothing to lose and it's time to start getting the quality sleep you deserve.
Call 800-876-0227 or go to MyPillow.com.
Don't forget to use the promo code D-I-N-E-S-H Dinesh.
I'm back with Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey.
By the way, you can follow him at Twitter.
It's at A-G Andrew Bailey, B-A-I-L-E-Y.
44th Attorney General of the state of Missouri.
We're talking about the Missouri versus Biden case.
Now, am I right that the Biden administration is taking the position that, hey, we are not forcing these digital platforms censor anybody.
We are merely making our position known as a government on where we stand on COVID, where we stand on masks, where we stand on vaccines, etc., etc.
And these guys are free to take this advice, yes or no.
So they are the ones making the decision, not us.
We are merely acting in an advisory capacity.
Is that their argument, or do they have a different argument?
No, you're absolutely right. That's one of their arguments.
And it's an absolutely absurd position for the federal government to take, given President Biden's explicit threats to repeal or amend Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act if big tech social media doesn't improve its censorship enterprise.
We already knew that big tech social media was censoring conservative voices, but what this lawsuit has uncovered is that it was being done at the behest of the federal government.
That absolutely violates the First Amendment right to free speech.
You know, the First Amendment is designed to protect a marketplace for open debate.
Uninhibited by government censorship.
The whole idea is to invite dissent.
And there's really three problems here.
And this was pointed out in the Trial Court's 155-page order based on the evidence we put on at the hearing.
But there's really three problems.
Number one, the speech, the federal government's coercion and collusion with big tech social media censored core political speech.
That's a violation of law.
That's a violation of the constitutional rights of Americans to say and hear what they please, absent government censorship.
Number two, all the topics that the government branded as misinformation We're good to go.
So again, this is one more instance in which the Biden administration has weaponized the federal government to silence and punish political opponents and force its ideology, even when that ideology is proven to be false and its actions violate the plaintext of the Constitution.
I want to highlight the critical point you just made, which is that they were not merely censoring false or untrue information, but also true information.
I mean, first of all, I don't even know where they get the constitutional authority to censor false information.
In other words, people are entitled to be wrong.
Free speech is not based upon the government exercising some kind of supervisory role on what is true and what is false.
And yet, manifestly, what you're saying is that they were putting out false information.
Things like, if you take the vaccine, you can't get COVID. If you take the vaccine, you can't give somebody else COVID. All of this turned out to be untrue.
So they are putting out False information, in some cases themselves, while restricting people who are saying things that are true.
I mean, one of the most Orwellian phrases that emerged from all this that I can see is the idea of mal-information.
So mal-information is information that's true, but they somehow think it's damaging to their cause.
It may make people more vaccine-hesitant, for example, but after all, if there's good reason to be vaccine-hesitant, Why not, right?
Yeah, and look, I mean, at the end of the day, one of the, like you said, one of the most Orwellian, you know, findings throughout this whole process and the discovery has been the director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Administration in the Department of Homeland Security, which has been identified as the nerve center of the vast censorship enterprise.
The director of CISA has, you know, which, by the way, cybersecurity and infrastructure security, computer systems, roads and bridges.
But yet the director of CISA had the audacity and said, well, there's neurological infrastructures.
So they are committed to controlling our thoughts and the way they do that is by silencing speech they disagree with.
When the government gets involved in determining what is and isn't true or what is and isn't misleading, they're talking about what we should and shouldn't hear.
They have no authority to do that.
That's up to us to determine on our own based on free, fair and open debate.
And that's why the wall of separation between tech and state is so critical at this juncture in our nation's history.
Isn't it also true, Andrew Bailey, that we're talking here not about an isolated agency of the government, like, hey, this is all coming out of, let's just say, the CDC, or even DHS, vast other enterprises.
We're talking about the State Department and the CDC and the White House and the DOJ. So, in other words, in fact...
Some of the advocates of censorship have talked about a government-wide enterprise, bringing all the agencies of government into coordination.
And so this is a massive censorship complex we're talking about, isn't it?
Yeah, the seed was planted in the deep state of the Department of Justice with the Hunter Biden laptop story.
That seed was fertilized and germinated when Biden took office, and it has grown so quickly that the federal government actually had to design a new bureaucratic structure to manage it.
In other words, the quantity of censorship requests coming from the federal government targeted at big tech social media We're so large and vast that they had to be funneled and channeled through one bureaucratic structure.
And we also have reason to believe that it's been outsourced now, that the federal government, understanding that it was violating the First Amendment, is seeking to outsource some of that censorship enterprise into the election integrity program, a quasi-governmental entity.
But we know that the same people in CISA who developed the censorship enterprise are now working at the election integrity program.
So it's their brainchild. And the government can't use a third party to do indirectly what it is forbidden to do directly.
And by moving, outsourcing the censorship enterprise, it's evidence of consciousness of guilt.
And look, we have got to get this right now because we're coming up on another election cycle.
And in court on May 26th, when the judge looked at the Department of Justice and said, hey, would it be a violation of the First Amendment for the government to silence an American citizen questioning the integrity of an election?
The federal government's response was, well, it depends.
That is unquestionably core political speech.
The government has no authority to stifle, silence, censor that speech.
We have the right to discuss these topics on big tech social media platforms or in other public forums.
And so that's why this is so critical to keep building on this wall of separation between tech and state.
Now, COVID was the excuse.
That was the Trojan horse that got the enemy behind the wall.
But the censorship enterprise has grown, it's expanded, and it's now threatening the integrity of an upcoming election.
Thank you very much, Andrew Bailey, for joining me, but also for your work in this important case.
It's one thing to complain about digital censorship and government collusion.
It's a whole other thing to take this to court and help to protect our rights under the law.
Thank you, sir. Always appreciate you.
Thank you for having me on. Guys, I'd like to invite you to check out my locals channel.
I post a lot of exclusive content there, including content that's censored on other social media platforms.
On locals, you get Dinesh Unchained, Dinesh Uncensored.
And you can also interact with me directly.
I do a live weekly Q&A every Tuesday.
That's tonight. No topic is off limits.
I've also uploaded some cool films to Locals, documentaries, feature films, both my films, and also films by other independent producers.
2,000 Mules is up there, and I'm doing a big new film this year.
I'll be giving you the inside scoop on Locals.
By the way, if you're an annual subscriber, you can stream and watch all these movies for free.
So check out my channel.
It's no charge to do that at dinesh.locals.com.
I'd love to have you along for this great ride.
Again, check it out at dinesh.locals.com.
In an important development, the World Cycling Governing Body, it's called the UCI, which is Union Cycliste Internationale, has decided no more trans athletes in cycling.
And when we say no more trans athletes, it sounds like we're speaking generically.
But what they really mean is no more biological males competing in the women's division.
That's really what it comes down to.
And this decision, which is a very welcome one, an appropriate one, came based on a single incident.
An American trans individual named Austin Killips We're good to go.
Which does not confirm that at least two years of gender-affirming hormone therapy is sufficient to completely eliminate the benefits of testosterone during puberty in men.
So previously, the UCI allowed these trans athletes to compete and they basically said that...
That as long as you, as long as they set some levels of testosterone levels, and they said that if you had these levels for 24 months, you're going to be okay.
But now they come back and say, no, no, no, we've looked at the science very carefully, and we can see that there is no evidence that these rules that we have in place as of now are going to create a level playing field.
In fact, they give the biological males a decisive advantage.
And they go on to say that given the current state of scientific knowledge, it's quite possible that biomechanical factors such as the shape and arrangement of the bones in the limbs may constitute a lasting advantage for transgender athletes.
So regardless of whether you're taking testosterone or not, it's the way that your body is organized as a male that makes a decisive difference.
It doesn't matter if you grow your hair long, it doesn't matter if you put on a skirt, you're still in that sense you have the male anatomy and that's where the advantage comes from.
Now there's an interesting article That says that while this decision from the cycling association is appropriate, the real people who are dragging their feet, the people who could really have a huge impact across the whole landscape of sports, The IOC is the International Olympic Organization.
And the problem is that the IOC has been too cowardly to address the issue.
Now, by the way, on other questions, the IOC is very strict.
The IOC is very careful to make sure that there are rules in place that create fairness, that there's no cheating allowed.
And yet, interestingly, all of this sort of That changed in 2004 when the IOC approved a policy that, in effect, would allow people who are trans to compete in women's events.
Now, at that time, the IOC thought that this was a great rarity.
You might see a single athlete here in a particular sport, and they thought it's no big deal.
By the way, the IOC was advised by an ideologue, a British transgender academic named Dr.
Joanna Harper, who basically said, you know, this is a quality, quote, trans people only want to enjoy the same things everyone else does.
And the IOC was like, yeah, okay, fine, that sounds good.
And then you might remember when New Zealand...
A New Zealand weightlifter.
This is a biological male transition to a female.
Female was Laurel Hubbard, age 43.
And there was a controversy about her participating in the weightlifting.
And then more recently, apparently a transgender male who transitioned into a female, now Valentina Petrio, grew up male, Took bronze in the women's 400 meters at the age of 49.
Now normally in an Olympics, can you imagine a 50-year-old running the 400 meters?
It's absurd. No 50-year-old could even be competitive against, obviously, members of your own gender.
So the idea of a runner who was 20 years older than the oldest next runner basically hitting bronze sort of highlighted the absurdity of the whole situation.
But the president of the IOC, a guy named Thomas Bach, is obviously an invertebrate and a coward.
He's scared of this issue, so he's staying zipped, he's staying mum, he's staying silent about it.
And yet if the IOC took action, it could have beneficial impacts across the whole field of sports.
There is an unintentionally amusing article in Salon. Now, a lot of Salon's content is unintentionally amusing.
And this one is amusing in the sense that you have a guy that no one's ever heard of named Mike Lofgren.
And he is doing a critique of the conservative intelligentsia going back to Edmund Burke.
So the targets of his article are Burke and...
Other philosophical defenders of conservatism.
On to Friedrich Hayek.
On to a British philosopher named Michael Oakeshott.
And then William F. Buckley.
Arthur Laffer.
Norman Podhort. Some of the Irving Kristol.
And the point of the article is that these conservative intellectuals don't know what they're talking about.
So this is sort of like you got a, you know, a sophomore...
At a mediocre university in physics basically saying, I'm going to review the history of physics.
We've got, you know, we've got Faraday and we've got Joule and we've got Pascal and Newton and Einstein and Isinger.
We've got Budden and Niels Bohr and Schrodinger and all these guys don't know what they're talking about.
Well, they actually do.
You're the one who doesn't know what you're talking about.
So the article is kind of fun reading because you've just got this Lilliputian fellow of very low intellect flailing away at these intellectual heavyweights.
And I say intellectual heavyweights not in an ideological sense because you could make a similar list of thinkers on the left, prominent figures going back, let's just say, to the French Revolution, people like Voltaire, and then you come through all the way to the 20th century, John Rawls, and nobody would claim that these guys are dummies or morons or don't know what they're talking about or they're not—they're intellectuals but they don't really have any intellect.
And yet this is the theme of this article, that somehow modern American conservatism is nothing more than a sort of reaction to genuine progress and nothing more than an effort to restore the kind of bad old days, the Ancien Regime.
the evil ways of the past.
Now... Now, conservatism has always been an effort to emphasize that the past does contain, because of the trial and error that goes into doing something over many, many centuries, a kind of accumulated wisdom.
And so again, going back to Burke, but continuing through Oakeshott and the others, it's not an opposition to change.
The real question is, change according to what basis?
When you say that we're doing this for progress, the point is, progress toward what?
How do you define progress?
I think it was C.S. Lewis who once said, if you're going somewhere and you're in the wrong road, progress may mean turning back and going the way you came from.
Why? Because that's how you get to where you wanted to go.
So, the point here is not a denial of progress, but it is an argument over the meaning of progress.
So, for example, we won't We would hardly disagree that, let's say, over the past several centuries, there has been a good deal of technological progress.
There's been an expansion of knowledge, but again, an expansion of knowledge in certain areas.
We know a lot more about physics.
In fact, an ordinary undergraduate today would know as much about physics as, let's say, Isaac Newton, but that's in part because of Isaac Newton.
The undergraduate student is standing on Isaac Newton's shoulders, so to speak.
But who would argue that there are people today who know more about philosophy than Plato?
That we are wiser than Socrates?
That our material progress has necessarily meant moral progress?
This is really where conservatism comes in to generate a legitimate debate.
Now, as I was reading this article and kind of chuckling all the way through, it occurred to me that there is, however, a grain of truth to the article, but not in the way that the author maintains.
We are seeing a kind of diminution or disappearance of the conservative intelligentsia.
Like, where are they now?
Who are the major conservative intellectuals?
Where's today's William F. Buckley?
Where's today's Solzhenitsyn?
Today's Hayek? And so on.
Or even today's Irving Kristol.
The answer is, we don't really have that.
And it's not because there aren't smart people.
It's just that the smart people today seem to have become divorced from politics or divorced from the application of ideas.
They're writing in the rarefied environment of theory without considering kind of what think tanks were set up to do.
How does this theory translate into public policy?
And therefore what?
How do you take an idea and put it into action?
What does this mean in terms of tax rates?
What does it mean in terms of what we should actually do in Ukraine?
And so what I think we have seen on the right, and this is beyond the scope of the article and more my point, is that we need a revival of the conservative intellectual tradition.
Not just the theoretical tradition, but the conservative tradition of taking ideas and putting them, if you will, into motion, putting them into action.
This would fortify the MAGA movement.
It would fortify the Republican Party.
It would fortify conservatism in general.
Now, of course, The same critique can be made of the left.
Where's the liberal intellectual tradition today?
And it seems equally defunct.
So some of this can be blamed upon shifts in our culture, the emergence and the predominance of social media, and so on.
But I would argue that even if the intellectual life plays a lesser role now than in the past, we still certainly do need it.
Subscribe to the Dinesh D'Souza Podcast on Apple, Google, and Spotify.
▲
Export Selection