All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 4, 2023 - Dinesh D'Souza
49:21
BIDEN’S MISCALCULATION Dinesh D’Souza Podcast Ep636
| 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, Debbie and I will do our Friday roundup and we'll examine the Biden regime's miscalculation at the heart of their multiple indictments against Trump.
I'll also consider whether the top scientists who insisted COVID had a natural origin had reason to suspect differently when they issued their public statements.
I'll also consider evidence from around the world that shows more people die from cold than from heat, which puts the whole climate debate into a new perspective.
Hey, if you're watching on Rumble, please subscribe to my channel.
Also, there's a join button, a red button at the top, and if you click that, it'll take you to locals.
You can check out my channel. If you're listening on Apple, Google, or Spotify, please also subscribe.
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.
I want to talk about a major scandal in the scientific community.
It's a scandal involving the suppression of facts related to the origins of COVID. Now, let's go through the story because it is a very damning one and puts some really big-name scientists, Christian Andersen, Peter Daszak, Ralph Baric, others, into a very problematic and, in some cases, very bad light.
March 27, 2020.
A group of prominent virologists publishes a paper on the, quote, proximal origin of COVID-19.
They say, quote, analyses clearly show, clearly show that SARS-CoV-2 is not a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus.
It goes on to basically argue for a natural origin of COVID. Now, this paper got enormous attention.
The editor-in-chief of Nature Medicine retweets it and says, quote, Let's put conspiracy theories about the origin of SARS-CoV-2 to rest and help to stop the spread of misinformation.
And then the paper goes on to claim, We do not believe that any type of laboratory-based scenario is plausible.
Now, interestingly, while this was going on, a story that sort of put the idea that COVID might have had a laboratory origin, might have been manufactured in the lab and then might have either leaked out or been deliberately pushed out, that would make it a bioweapon.
This was, the discussion of this issue was shut down.
And Here's ABC. Sorry, conspiracy theorist.
Study concludes COVID-19 is not a laboratory construct.
Vice News. Once and for all, the new coronavirus was not made in a lab.
So you can see here, there's media pressure.
I can tell you that people who were talking about a lab origin for COVID were censored routinely.
On places like YouTube and Facebook.
So you have, first of all, a definitive statement made by leading virologists, trumpeted in the scientific media, amplified in the general media, and then used as the basis for censorship.
But behind the scenes, something else is going on.
The very morning that that paper was issued, Christiane Anderson sends an email to Fauci Um, alerting him to the paper, and Fauci praises him, thanks for your note, nice job on the paper, and so on.
And, um, and, um, Now we find out, from leaked messages, that the very scientists who wrote that paper thought differently.
And here we go.
This is Dr.
Edward Holmes, who says, 60-40 lab, meaning he gives it a 60-40 chance that it was concocted in the lab.
Quote, I really can't think of a plausible natural scenario.
This is another guy writing, Robert Gehry.
Here's Gary who continues, In the lab it would be easy.
It's not crackpot to suggest this could have happened given the gain-of-function research we know is happening.
And here's Christian Andersen himself.
The lab escape version of this is so friggin' likely because they were already doing this work.
So these are guys talking to each other and saying, you know what, we're not sure, but it's leaning toward a lab origin, not a natural origin.
Now... These scientists were also aware that this gain-of-function research is kind of dangerous.
One of them talks about it as a wild west.
In other words, very little oversight, very little regulation.
Here's Anderson talking about the Wuhan lab in another email, quote, I'm all for gain-of-function research, but to do it at a BSL, biosafety level 3, is nuts.
In other words, he's saying this was not all that safe.
But, as the discussion continues, you see these scientists begin to worry that if people start talking about a lab leak theory, it would, quote, do unnecessary harm to science in general and science in China in particular.
Now, what do they mean? They don't mean harm to science, really.
What they mean is harm to their project, harm to gain-of-function research, harm to the NIH, which had been funding gain-of-function research through American labs, but American labs working in cahoots with the Wuhan lab.
In fact, Christian Anderson, this scientist who is leaning to a lab leak theory, had an $8.9 million grant application sitting on Fauci's desk.
He changes his tune.
He goes out public and goes, I don't think it was a lab leak at all.
I'm convinced it was natural origin.
And guess what? Four days after that paper is published, Anderson's grant is approved and finalized.
These scientists and their emails are talking about manipulating the media, about influencing the coverage of the New York Times.
So what do we have here?
We have America's leading scientists.
Collaborating with public health authorities really to cover their own butts and to create disinformation.
Even though they are internally debating the issue and there's a legitimate debate and it's leaning toward a lab origin, they put out a public propaganda narrative that says the exact opposite.
So, this is a cover-up operation by these scientists and by the U.S. government.
And who are they covering up for?
They're covering up for the scientific community in the United States, but they're also covering up for the Chinese Communist Party.
So this is a scientific scandal in the sense that these guys should be banished from the corridors of science.
A fraud label should be hung around their necks.
Fauci and Colin should be punished for their participation in an obvious disinformation scheme.
And meanwhile, our distrust, public distrust of the health authorities, more intense than ever, now that we know the kind of shenanigans that they are not only capable of, but actually did.
Have you heard of the Durban Accords?
The greatest threat to the U.S. dollar's global dominance in the past 80 years.
On August 22nd, Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa are expected to announce the launch of a new international super currency fully backed by gold or other commodities.
This is all part of a long-term plan to supplant the US and the dollar as cornerstones of the global financial system.
How can you protect your savings, your IRA or 401k from the fallout from this landmark shift?
Well, you can diversify with gold, We're good to go.
Recently, Jim Jordan released the Facebook Files.
I talked about it on the podcast.
And the Facebook Files details some fairly extensive efforts Between the Biden administration and Meta or Facebook collaborating together, in some cases the Biden regime putting pressure on Facebook, in some cases Facebook responding or accommodating the requests or demands of the Biden regime.
And this was presented by Jim Jordan in the Facebook files as very much governmental collusion.
The government is pressuring Facebook or Meta to do its bidding.
And that is sort of one storyline, and there's a lot of truth to it.
And you can see Facebook is, in some cases, a willing participant.
But in other cases, they're like, the Biden people want us to do more.
Okay, let's do more, and so on.
But there is a rival theory about what's going on here that needs to be considered.
And that is that the real story here is not Biden pressure on Facebook.
That is part of the story.
But when you recognize that these platforms, the old Twitter before Elon Musk bought it, or YouTube, which is owned by Google or Facebook now, they are themselves active censors.
And if the Biden people are asking them to do it, they're just helping these guys do what they would do anyway.
The real story is not so much the Biden regime driving this.
it is that you've got a sort of the police agencies of government have largely taken over these digital platforms.
That's a different claim and a bit of a startling claim.
And it's a claim made by a guy on Twitter, his code name, or at least his Twitter handle is name redacted 247.
And he says that what's going on is you've got operatives of the police agencies of government, the CIA, the DOJ, DHS, the FBI.
And these guys have infiltrated Twitter, now called X, Meta, now Facebook, Meta.
YouTube, and Google, and they are densely populating the oversight or the censorship apparatus at these platforms.
They are very actively involved.
They have a lot of power.
And they are the ones who are using their power to do election interference both in the United States and around the world.
This is a very interesting angle of the whole thing.
And this fellow named Redacted, who's a good researcher, I've shared his material at other times, He says that he uses as an example a guy named Aaron Berman.
So he has given multiple names of people who have come from the police agencies to these digital platforms.
But Aaron Berman spent 17 years with the CIA before joining Facebook in 2019.
He built their misinformation policy department.
He wrote most of the misinformation policy.
He's the liaison between Meta and The sort of, quote, external stakeholders.
But who are those? The White House, U.S. intelligence agencies, the FBI, the CIA, DHS, foreign governments and intelligence, the mainstream media.
And so this is a guy who's manipulating Facebook coverage or Facebook policy regarding the 2020 election, COVID-19, Ukraine, and also elections in other countries.
And then we see that Meta has been actively involved in not just U.S. elections, suppressing narratives, advancing narratives, but also in other elections.
So Berman, for example, posted about Meta's election interference in Kenya in the 2022 election.
In which Meta partnered with all kinds of fact-checkers, AFP, PESA Check, Africa Check, to review content in English and Swahili.
They were also involved in, quote, combating misinformation for the 2022 Philippine election.
Berman posted about Meta's election interference in Nigeria's 2023 election, in which they partnered with local radio stations to create what they called no-false news zones.
And they ran ads on Facebook and radio in four different languages, Yoruba, Hassa, Pigdin, and Igbo.
So what you see here is a police state operation to control the flow of information, not just in the United States, but in other countries.
And this is... Facebook is moving into an election interference mode right at the time when all these countries are having elections.
Now again, there are disputed issues in these countries.
And so for META to decide, we're gonna advance this narrative, we're gonna suppress these people, this is outright election interference.
This is anti-democratic spook activism being driven by people in the police agencies of the US government.
So one way to look at all this, as I said, is the sort of Jim Jordan narrative, which is also the narrative of the people suing the Biden administration, Missouri versus Biden, and that is government collusion with the private sector.
But the other way to look at it is as a sort of police state or deep state operation to infiltrate these digital platforms and control and regulate, or which is another way of saying subvert democracy, not just in the United States, but around the world.
you Debbie and I are on a great health journey, but we still struggle to eat enough fruits, veggies, and fiber.
Now, lucky for us, we discovered Balance of Nature.
And what better way to get all your fruits and veggies plus fiber than with Balance of Nature?
This is a Balance of Nature's fruits and veggies.
They're a star product made from fresh whole produce.
The produce is powdered after an advanced vacuum-cold process, which stabilizes the maximum nutrient content.
And here's Balance of Nature Fiber and Spice, a proprietary blend of fiber and 12 spices for overall and digestive health.
Great stuff. Start your journey to better health right now.
This is the final week to get free fruits and veggies travel set plus $25 off your first order as a preferred customer when you use promo code AMERICA. Call 800-246-8751.
That's 800-246-8751 or go to balanceofnature.com.
Use discount code AMERICA. We're all being told to get very agitated about the terrible consequences of climate change.
I saw a UN official say, we really can't even call it global warming.
It's now global boiling.
Global boiling.
Well, it is a little bit boiling hot right now in the Sahara Desert.
It's also, as we might colloquially say, boiling hot here in Texas.
But it's really no more boiling hot than it is in the summer in Texas anyway.
And if you've been to the Sahara Desert, it's pretty hot there much of the year.
Debbie and I were actually in our swimming pool yesterday, and Debbie's like, well, you know, if it was boiling hot in February, then they might have a point.
Then we might look twice.
But we're seeing nothing different than we're accustomed to.
Some years are hotter, some years are colder.
Even the claim that this is the hottest year in history, all you have to do is go back to recorded history, and you'll find hotter years.
And then, of course, there are eons and eons of unrecorded history which are being lumped in.
And as if to say, Ilhan Omar, you remember, tweeted out something like, this is the hottest year in 160, 130,000 years.
And I'm like, show me some measurements from 129,000 years ago so I can compare it to what's going on now.
Of course, she has none.
No one's done any.
There weren't any human beings on the earth at the time.
No one could do any.
So none of this is based upon temperature observations, even though it's intended to give the misleading impression that it is.
There's a very interesting fact about all this that goes ignored in this debate, and it is quite simply that cold every year kills a lot more people than heat.
So let's think about that for a minute.
Because if that is true, and it is manifestly, demonstrably true, and it's true, by the way, not just in cold areas of the world.
It's true in hot areas.
If you consider a country like India, which is by and large a warm country.
In fact, we go to India, Debbie and I do, sometimes in the winter, and it's like in the temperatures in the late 60s or early 70s.
That's in the winter. So, at least in the parts of India we go to.
Now, there are other parts of India, New Delhi and so on, that are colder.
Obviously, it's very cold up north near the Himalayas.
But the point being, India has far more cold depths than it does heat depths.
Now, if you cogitate or ruminate on that fact for a moment, you'll realize that a little bit of warming is going to be good for the world in reducing cold deaths.
Because if there are people dying of cold, and the planet is getting a little bit warmer, and we are talking about a little bit warmer, even if you listen to the climate change activists or look at all the studies that climate-funded groups are putting out, they're talking about warming in the range of 1 to 1.5 degrees Celsius.
And that's over 100 years.
So the question is, what is the impact of the climate getting a little bit warmer?
And this simple fact about coal debts shows you, and the data, by the way, about coal debts is coming from a respected scientific magazine, The Lancet, but supported in many other sources.
Cold deaths outnumber heat deaths somewhere between 5 and 15 times.
And that means for every guy who dies from a heat death, 5 to 15 people are dying from cold deaths.
Now, Another thing to notice is that this fact is almost never mentioned in articles about climate change.
They never say this. Why? Because to say it is immediately to raise the question, well, wait a minute, couldn't we use a little bit of warming?
Doesn't it have some positive effects?
The Lancet itself, which provides the data...
At the same time is promoting global warming and what they do is they create a fake graph and by fake graph what I mean is instead of showing the cold depths and the heat depths on the same graph using the same measure, what they do is they make the heat depths five times larger on the graph.
So it's almost like in the cold graph, you're measuring 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.
And on the other graph, you're measuring 5, 10, 15, 20, 25.
The point I'm trying to make is not to use actual numbers, but just to show that the two graphs are not commensurate.
You have sort of manipulated the graphs to make the heat deaths look bigger than they are.
And so what's going on here...
It's an effort to distort the truth.
And the truth is this, that the warming that we're seeing is again not even.
It's not occurring all over the world.
It is occurring more in cold areas.
So think about it. What this means is that there is less warming in existing hot areas.
And there is more warming in cold areas that presumably could use a little bit of warming.
Not only that, not only is the warming concentrated in colder areas like the Arctic, it's also more at colder times of the day and during colder seasons.
So, you find that colder times of the day warm a little, colder seasons warm a little, and the point being, again, that when you consider that cold deaths are the most common form of deaths, You have to then ask, how is this the catastrophe it is being portrayed to be?
Final point I want to make is that whether the Earth is getting colder or hotter, one way you protect people from all this is central air, central heat, air conditioning.
These are ways that human beings can adapt and respond to changing temperatures.
If it's really hot outside, get inside where it's cooler.
But guess what? Those things require fossil fuels.
And everybody knows that.
And the Indians and Chinese know that.
They need and they're developing coal plants and other forms of fossil fuels for the obvious reason that they know that they need energy in part to protect their own populations from the heat and from the cold.
We all get some aches and pains as we get older, and if you're looking for a remedy, there is one.
It's called Relief Factor.
Debbie and I started taking Relief Factor a couple years ago now.
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 do exercises now that for a long time she wasn't able to do. So, Relief Factor has been a big game changer for her, her aunt, other members of our family, and for many other people. You too can benefit. Try it for yourself. Order the 3-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
the software. The number again to call 800-4-RELIEF or go to relieffactor.com. You'll feel the difference.
Debbie and I are here for our Friday roundup and yesterday I did a special episode on the indictment, the implications of it, the content of it, potential defenses that Trump can make.
What do you make of all this business? Well, you know, I told you that I'm not sure that the Biden administration knows what they are setting themselves up for.
What do you mean? Because I think that at the end of the day, regardless of what happens to Trump, and we know that going to a D.C. court, we know what the outcome probably will be.
But what they don't count on is the fact that people are going to be so angry that they are going to not elect a Democrat to the White House, regardless whether it's Biden or anybody else.
I think what you're saying is, we need to develop this thought, because what you're saying is they're making a miscalculation.
Yeah. They're so focused on getting Trump, and it's because they do fear Trump, that let's just follow it through.
Let's say they succeed. Let's say that they get Trump.
Let's even say that they put Trump in jail.
Mm-hmm. What you're saying is that the ordinary person now, enough information has got out, not just about their multiple prosecutions and the kind of targeting of Trump and Trumpsters, but also the Biden corruption.
Yeah, they see that there are two tiers of justice, right?
They actually go, hey, wait a minute.
This dude was selling influence For millions of dollars, making his family the pawn boys or whatever.
Buying multiple homes.
Exactly. Putting people in, you know, even paying like this new guy that comes in, the business partner.
Devin Archer. Devin Archer.
Bringing him into the fold, you know.
People can tell that there is something not right about this.
Even if they don't follow politics, and you know that we follow politics very closely because that's just what we do.
But, you know, I like to look at my Facebook because I have a lot of friends, high school friends.
political at all and they just don't follow politics. So I kind of like look at their page to see what they're saying and unfortunately what they're saying is that they feel like like both guys need to not run again because they're too old and they're too corrupt, right?
They're not really looking at the corruption the way they should be looking at the corruption because if they really took a deep dive into it, they would see that the corruption is really only coming from one side.
Yeah, they're not making any fine distinctions.
It's a box on both your houses.
And what you're saying is those guys who are, by and large, I mean, think about it.
These are mainly Hispanics.
They're from a blue part of Texas, the Rio Grande Valley.
These are people who's probably been habitually voting Democrat, a lot of them.
And what they're saying is that what you think is going to happen is that if they get Trump, No matter what Republican is on the ticket, he's likely to win.
Yeah, because they're going to see Biden as a corrupt person.
Obviously, he is.
But I think all of this doesn't bode well for Biden.
And he thinks it does, because he does think that if he gets the main opponent out of the way, kind of like a dictator does in third world countries, if we get this guy out of the way, I mean,
here's another scenario, and that is if the Trump people can successfully, as I mentioned yesterday, put the 2020 election on trial.
And show that at the very least, even if reasonable people can disagree, it is not criminal to suspect and believe that something went wrong in 2020 and that election was rigged and stolen.
If you can put that before the American people, put the evidence before them that a lot of them have never seen.
Real evidence. Real evidence.
Because the media has done its best to cover the camouflage, to appoint the courts, so the courts have dismissed the cases.
Then what happens is, and then on top of that, a vengefully biased D.C. jury convicts Trump, even though it's obvious, you know, it's like you watched one trial on TV, you get a different outcome.
It's reversed by the Supreme Court.
Trump now is triumphant.
Trump basically goes, listen, I've been vindicated by the highest court in the country.
I mean, I do not know that there's a way to predict how this will all play out.
But I think you're right.
And another lawyer, prominent lawyer, who did I say?
Is it Dershowitz? Dershowitz said the same thing.
He said, more than likely, Trump will be tried and convicted in D.C., but then he will get an appeal to the Supreme Court, and it will probably be overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court.
And I think that...
Again, all of this, who knows how long this is going to take.
We know that the Supreme Court is not exactly Speedy Gonzalez.
Well, but I think what's going to happen is that the Obama judge, Chutkin, is likely to try to rush the trial.
Why? Because she wants a conviction of Trump before the 2024 election.
Now, once that is done, appeals are very quick.
Okay. And particularly in this case.
I mean, think about the stakes involved.
So it's a high stakes case.
And I think what we're trying to say in this segment is it's not clear how it's going to play out.
I also have advice to the Trump team.
Listen, don't worry about doing all these rallies.
As we know, rallies really don't matter when it comes to who wins or loses.
Let's worry about the election and let's worry about The voting and all of those things that need to take place because I think that they're afraid that all of these court hearings and everything is going to take him away from rallies.
Well, you know what?
A lot of the Republicans are behind him.
He doesn't need rallies.
It's MyPillow's 20th year anniversary and if you can believe it, Mike Lindell has sold over 80 million pillows in that time.
He wants to thank each and every one of you by giving you the lowest price in history on his MyPillows.
You can 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.
Everything is on sale.
The bedsheets, the mattress toppers, the pet beds, the mattresses, my slippers, the robes, and so much more.
This is the time to surf the website, try out some of the amazing products that you've just had your eye on.
Go to MyPillow.com, use promo code Dinesh to get the amazing offer on the queen-size MyPillow for $19.98, or you can call 800-876-0227.
The offer comes with a 10-year warranty, a 60-day money-back guarantee.
It's time to start getting the quality sleep you deserve.
So go ahead and call 800-876-0227 or go to MyPillow.com.
Don't forget to use the promo code D-I-N-E-S-H Dinesh.
We're continuing our discussion of the Trump indictment.
This is the January 6th indictment.
And so you have two parallel tracks.
You've got the indictments.
Remember there was a classified documents indictment and now this indictment both brought by the special counsel Jack Smith.
And at the same time, important information is coming out in leaps and bounds about the magnitude of Biden's family corruption, but also the particular and direct involvement of Joe Biden in these corrupt and criminal schemes.
So this is not a case the press is trying to cover.
This is a Hunter Biden is trying to sell the illusion of access to his dad.
No, it's not illusion. I can get my dad on the phone.
Here he is. He's going to be talking to you around the table.
So the point of Joe Biden being on all the calls is for Joe Biden to kind of signal to these business partners that what you're buying is in fact going to be delivered.
You're going to get it. And we know, of course, that Biden did get it.
Wasn't there an Axios article yesterday that came out about the fact that, hey, all of the stuff is kind of going away because of the Trump indictment?
That kind of took front and center, and it kind of took them out of the headlines, right?
Yeah. Right. So this is from the left.
They're actually saying, wow, it's kind of a relief.
We were kind of in the awkward position of having to sort of defend Biden and come up with elaborate and rather unconvincing apologetics for how Biden himself wasn't a direct crook.
Maybe his family members were crooked, but not him.
But now, to our unbelievable good luck, we've got this indictment.
And your point is, it's not unbelievable good luck.
It's timed. It is actually very well timed.
In fact, I wouldn't doubt, seriously, if Biden didn't tell Smith, hey, hey, do something right now, do something right now.
Let's, let's, let's, let's get this.
You know, I can back this up by pointing to a New York Times article in which it is reported by the Times that Joe Biden was repeatedly calling on Merrick Garland to indict Trump.
And in fact, he was saying that Merrick Garland is a little too much kind of a pussyfooter.
He's a bit of a legalist.
And what he needs to do is just go for it.
And then what does Merrick Garland do?
He appoints Jack Smith.
So I can confirm, at least leaning in this case on the reporting of The New York Times, that Biden was directly involved in putting pressure on Merrick Garland to do this.
That is just craziness.
I mean, like I said, that is something that a third world country dictator who wants the illusion of democracy, right?
Okay, I'm elected, whatever, but takes out a very formidable opponent.
And I mean, think of the double standard.
If Trump did the same thing, Trump put pressure on his Justice Department to, let's say, arrest Biden, they'd be like, Trump is subverting democracy.
But if Biden does the exact same thing, Biden is protecting democracy.
How is Biden not called a fascist?
Well, this is the point, is that we almost have a standard now, a media standard, where if Trump does it, it's by definition bad.
And if Biden does it, it doesn't matter what the it is, it can be looting the treasury, it can be selling offices for cash, it can be arresting your political opponent, it's all acceptable.
So what I'm getting at is we've completely lost our sort of moorings, the sense that the country operates under equal justice under the law.
I mean, what is the ordinary alert person?
I'm not talking to the guy who lives in a fog, doesn't even pay attention to politics.
I'm talking about the guy who's not involved in politics, but nevertheless is paying attention to what's going on.
What do they think? Well, I talked to our IT guy yesterday.
He was kind of making...
Fixing our Wi-Fi. Yeah, fixing our Wi-Fi issue, was telling me, he's like, listen, I really am just like done.
With these guys.
I mean, they're just, you know, I'm just done with them.
Let's move on.
And I was like, no, we can't move on.
Because he thinks it's about Trump and he doesn't like Trump anymore, right?
I said, it's not about Trump.
Moving on means that we are accepting what the left is doing to us.
That means that we are going to just sit back and let them do it.
And your point, which you made before, is that they're doing it to us.
So, in other words, if they're stealing an election, they're not stealing it from Trump.
They're stealing it from you and me who cast our votes.
And our votes are being essentially torn into two pieces.
And I really do think that that whole, you know, everyone's like, oh yeah, the more they do this to Trump, the more support he gets.
But again, I argue that it's maybe not so much support for Trump himself, but it's support for the movement.
It's support for, hey, you know what?
You cannot do this to us.
We cannot live in a one party state.
We can't live in a one-party America where the Democrats run everything.
You're trampling on our civil liberties.
You're undermining our rights.
Whose rights to free speech are being trampled?
Ours. Whose rights to assembly were trampled under COVID? Ours.
Whose rights to religious freedom are being trampled?
Ours. So in case, who's being treated unequally under the law?
Not just Trump. Lots of other people are.
The January 6th defendants are.
Many other people are. I was in my own case.
So what we're getting at here is this is an assault issue.
Upon a whole body of American citizens, and the reason that they're galvanized behind Trump is that he is only the most egregious symbol of that kind of violation.
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've got Dinesh Unchained, Dinesh Uncensored.
You can also interact with me directly.
I do a live weekly Q&A every Tuesday, 8 p.m.
Eastern. No topic is off limits.
I've also uploaded some very cool films to Locals, both documentaries and feature films, both my films and also films by other independent producers.
If you go to my Locals page, there's a little tab there now, Dinesh Movie List, and all you do is click on that.
It takes you to the films, and I'm doing a new film this year.
I'll be giving you the inside scoop on that and posting some exclusive footage on Locals, and if you're an annual subscriber, you'll be able to stream and watch all these movies, including the new one, For free.
So check out my channel at dinesh.locals.com.
By the way, if you're watching the podcast on Rumble, there's a join button, red button at the top.
If you click on that, it'll take you straight to Locals.
I'd love to have you along for this great ride.
Again, dinesh.locals.com.
Debbie and I were sitting outside, you know, having coffee, which we do usually after the podcast.
Yeah, guys, just get this, okay?
It's like 98 degrees and we go out in our little patio upstairs and we have hot coffee.
Just saying! Well, it just shows that we are tropical characters and we've both been raised in tropical climates and this kind of weather.
Well, I won't say it doesn't affect us, but it doesn't really phase us.
Yeah, not a lot. Because there are people who are like, I can't believe the heat.
I can't lose. Yeah, I complain more when it's cold than when it's hot, don't I? Oh, for sure.
Yeah. And I mean, I think you're unusual in this.
I'm not like this, but I mean, you'll find even temperatures in the mid-70s to be like a chili.
A little chilly. A little chilly. Yeah.
You'll take your sweater with you.
I won't go in a swimming pool if it's in the 70s or even the 80s.
I'm a little, you know, because it's cold.
The water's cold. Right.
Yeah, exactly. But anyway. Anyway, what happened is we were, Debbie was telling me about a news report about the death of Pee Wee Herman.
Remember Pee Wee Herman?
Paul Rubens. Paul Rubens is his real name.
And this is a guy who, I mean, what's interesting is that they, they Debbie was kind of reading me the article, and the article is lionizing the guy.
Oh, Pee Wee Herman died.
And then we were both like, wait, Pee Wee Herman, now wait, wasn't there kind of a very bizarre scandal involving this guy?
He had a dark side, that's for sure.
And what was he, sitting in some kind of porn movie and, you know, like...
1991! And we were like, wait a minute, it was 1991?
It seems like just yesterday when that happened.
Now, what was so damaging about it wasn't just the guy's a sicko or a pervert, but it was that he's a pervert who's also, his image is related to him being this guy who's almost like a figure for children to look up to.
Yeah, but you know... Interestingly, I was reading an article and it said that his peewee role was actually for adults for a long time before it became a children's show.
Oh, interesting. Yeah, so it was for adults mainly.
But, you know, he was a goofball.
And I think the movie was called Pee-wee's Adventure.
Pee-wee's Big Adventure. Big Adventure or whatever, you know, where he was just goofy and whatever.
But he definitely had a bit of a dark side.
Apparently, he was arrested, if you guys remember, those of you that were around in 1991 and remember this, for indecent exposure at a Florida porn house.
Yeah. And not only that, but then 10 years later, 2002, he was charged with possessing images that were said to be child pornography.
Now, I don't know where that case went.
I think the charges were dropped.
Yeah, and he pleaded guilty to a lesser obscenity charge.
Right. And that often is the result of a bargaining in which he agrees to take the lesser charge, and then this way they avoid the drama of a trial and the expense of it and so on.
All that to say that apparently everyone's forgotten because this was the statement when he died.
Last night we said farewell to Paul Rubens, an iconic American actor, comedian, writer, and producer whose beloved character Pee Wee Herman delighted generations of children and adults with his positivity, whimsy, and belief in the importance of kindness.
Now, in fairness, you know, this was, in a sense, I wouldn't say it's a death notice per se, but by and large, when someone dies, you tend to emphasize the positive.
And then as we read the article, this is an article in the New York Post, by the way, toward the end, it does take note of the...
But I think the point you were making while we were chatting was that, look, you know, when these actors are on the left...
They are allowed to get away with these things.
Not just Pee Wee Herman, but also even somebody as egregious as Harvey Weinstein.
Right, but he, you know, Harvey Weinstein raped women.
And so he didn't just sexually- He's in a different category.
Right, he's a sexual predator.
And these women just were not gonna let him get away with it, right?
He actually forcibly, you know, had intercourse with them or oral sex or whatever.
He was just disgusting.
And, but he got away with it for many, many years.
I remember a video where at one of the award ceremonies, Meryl Streep referred to him.
She was being a little ironic, but only a little, as God.
Let me introduce God, Harvey Weinstein.
And this was Meryl Streep.
So the kind of creme de la creme, the cool people in Hollywood.
They, in a way, admired Weinstein, I think in part because they envied the fact that this guy was essentially above the rules.
He could do whatever he wanted.
He was canonized in that satanic environment.
Yeah, and it is satanic.
I mean, it really is. From him to Epstein, to his Lolita Island, all these people are all kind of just, they just, they're so incestuous and they just, they create this culture of just sickness.
I mean, it's gone, you know, in the old days, Hollywood had infidelity. People would, you know, play roles and then they would, you know, have sex with their co-stars. This has been going on for a long time. This was going on in Reagan's day, not involving Reagan, but involving other people.
But it's now gone to a twisted level.
I mean, you now have issues of pedophilia, satanic worship, rape.
I mean, this is the kind of stuff of Sodom and Gomorrah.
You almost kind of not only expect, but want, you know, brimstone to come down upon Hollywood.
Because these people are so out of control.
And yet...
They are still, in a way, lionized by the media.
And the example of Pee Wee Herman is a small example of this, but it's the larger phenomenon we're concerned about.
Last week during our Friday roundup, we did a segment on our new grandchild, Marigold, who's now just over two weeks old.
Two weeks old yesterday.
Yeah, yeah. And we got some pictures.
She went in for her. This is when they first draw blood.
Yeah, but we don't have a picture of that, so let's not...
No, no, no. Right, exactly.
But I was just noting that we looked at it and she does not look like a happy cab.
Who would be? No, no.
Especially, yeah, at that age, you don't really have a lot of, like, expressions except you're happy or you're not happy.
Well, during last week's episode, we intended to include some photos so you could kind of look and see.
Well, I guess we're trying to show off our cute grandchild.
So Debbie had a bunch of photos, but through sort of a glitch, that didn't happen.
So we're taking the occasion now in this segment just to sort of show you kind of marigold in her first few days.
Yeah. And a little assortment.
What do you have, four or five?
Yeah. Six photos. Six photos.
And lucky for everyone, I didn't add ten photos.
But anyway. We don't want to overdo the enthusiastic grandparent phenomenon by just blasting you nonstop with like...
I mean, I think if it were just up to us, we would do like a 30-minute slide presentation.
But we're not going to do that. We're just going to give you a look.
A whole podcast episode on Marigold.
Yeah. A special.
A very good special.
Well, all right. We hope you enjoy the photos.
And by the way, if you're listening on audio on Apple or Google or Spotify, you might want to check it out on Rumble or YouTube.
You'll be able to see the photos that way.
But you wanted to also make a point in our final segment about alcohol.
Now that we're grandparents, I want us to live a very long time so we can see Mary Gold enjoy her teenage years and maybe into her adulthood, right?
But one of the things...
I mean, it's a little bit of a scary math, if you think about it, because I'm 62.
So let's think about it. When Marigold is, let's just say, 23, right?
Which would be, she graduated from college and so on.
Maybe, you know, get married about that time.
I will be 85.
85. And you will be... I know.
We will be geezers.
I mean, if we're around for that occasion.
I hope we are. And one of the things I wanted to talk about, and remember I pulled out this article, because you love wine.
I like red wine.
You like red wine. And it used to be that the American Heart Association said that drinking red wine In the evening was actually good for your heart, but they've reversed that.
It's no longer good for your heart.
In fact, they have found that even one drink, one drink per day, can raise your blood pressure and therefore be very bad for your heart.
So when I read this, I was like, this is great because, see, I don't drink, so...
So even when we were doing PhD weight loss, one of the things that they told us is that, first of all, you have to abstain from alcohol.
I was like, abstain?
I don't even drink alcohol.
So for me, it wasn't an issue.
For you, it was because you like to have your wine with dinner.
I mean, I'm not a daily drinker, but I do like weekends to have a glass of wine.
Oh, a glass of wine. A glass or two.
A glass or two.
If you don't need to drink, don't.
If there's any way that you can relax, try to incorporate that into your evening routine.
In other words, don't do the alcohol.
And the other thing is that, you know, also it says part of the puzzle when it comes to the reduction of even mild alcohol consumption is providing an alcohol-free option at public events.
You know that every time there's a public event, there's always alcohol.
And so they say...
It's not terribly common, but it's not uncommon to have that.
And so there are types of things that we can teach our patients, other ways that you can enjoy a social environment, to pour yourself a glass of something that's not alcoholic and still feel part of the social infrastructure.
I always have sparkling water.
I mean, I will say that even going back to my college years, there is a lot of drinking that is driven by social pressure.
And so, for example, I'm actually not a fan of beer, but I drank a fair amount of beer in college because everyone was drinking beer.
So you kind of feel like, I need to kind of fit in.
I need to be part of the group.
And so you go to a social event even now as adults, when there's alcohol, you almost feel a little bit bad if you're not...
I don't. You know, you're pretty...
You're fine. I don't.
And so this is interesting to know because what they're saying is that it's, you know, something I remember from when we were in London with my family was my sister made an interesting point and her husband has a drink every day.
And he was going at first checkup and his doctor said something like, well, you know, for an alcoholic like your husband.
And my sister was like, he's not an alcoholic.
And the doctor was like, does he have a drink every day?
And she goes, well, yeah.
And then the doctor goes, well, he's an alcoholic.
Because an alcoholic is defined not as somebody who drinks like crazy and falls off the table and lands on the floor, but an alcoholic means someone who is dependent on alcohol.
And so from a medical point of view, not common parlance, but from a medical point of view, having a drink every day means you're an alcoholic.
Subscribe to the Dinesh D'Souza podcast on Apple, Google, and Spotify.
▲
Export Selection