All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 8, 2023 - Dinesh D'Souza
49:47
SINGLE WHITE FEMALE Dinesh D’Souza Podcast Ep660
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Coming up, I'll reveal how single women, mostly white, are the key to understanding the leftward drift of the Democratic Party and of American politics in general.
Consider the prejudicial record of the Trump judge, this is Tanya Chutkin, in the January 6th case showing why she should, but won't, recuse herself.
Debbie's going to join me. We're going to talk about the worst cities to live in and why they all are run by Democrats, so most of them.
The extreme verdicts being visited on some January 6th defendants and the politics behind the trial of Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton.
Hey, if you're listening on Apple, Google, or Spotify, please subscribe to my channel.
Same if you're watching on Rumble.
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.
We've seen in the last few years, last several years, American politics pushing We're good to go.
And that is true, but it is an insufficient explanation because, think about it, the left controls some things, but we control others.
We control, for example, the House.
Well, yes, Dinesh, but our control over the House is very narrow.
Well, yeah, but the left's control of the Senate is even narrower.
They have a one-vote majority in the Senate.
We have at least a few-vote majority in the House.
They have the White House, which is a good thing to have, but we have the Supreme Court.
When you go to the state level, when it comes to attorneys general, when it comes to secretaries of state, governors, and so on, we are at least equally well represented.
So that doesn't really do the trick.
Now, the left has been coming up with a narrative for its own success.
And the narrative is, in fact...
Not really true. The narrative is that American society is becoming more diverse.
American society now has more blacks because the black birth rate is higher than the white birth rate.
It has more Hispanics in part due to both legal and I suppose also illegal immigration.
It has more Asian Americans have come in as well now They were once an almost infinitesimal part of the population.
Now, what, 7 or 8 percent?
So a significant minority.
And so all of this is creating a new ethnically diverse culture that is making America, if you will, lurch leftward.
But that is not in fact the case.
The real secret to the leftward drift of the Democratic Party and of American politics is single white women.
Now... Let's back up before we analyze this, because there are other factors that are important.
For example, racial and ethnic differences play a role in American politics.
There was a remarkable book that talked about American folkways that goes back to say that even among white immigrants who have come over the decades and even centuries to America, you've got the Scott Irish, and they are different from the people who came from England and We're good to go.
There are, of course, religious differences.
For example, in New York City, there were differences between the Yankee Protestants and the Irish Catholics.
There were even differences among the Catholics between the Irish and the Italians.
There are differences between the politics of, say, Catholics on the one hand and evangelical Protestants on the other.
We know that evangelicals, for example, now are pretty much as much of a bedrock of the Republican Party as, say, blacks are and have been in recent years of the Democratic Party.
We also hear a lot about the gender gap, the difference between male and female.
But if you borrow a little more closely, you realize it's not exactly a gender gap.
It's sort of a marriage gap.
Another way to put it is that if you find somebody who is married with children, a family, it is quite likely that all the voting members of that family, obviously I'm talking about the parents, are likely to be Republican.
There's a high chance that they'll be Republican.
If you find a married couple, there's a decent chance, better than 50-50, that that couple will be Republican.
On the other hand, if you find a single woman, And this also applies, although to a lesser degree, for divorced women who are now single.
But either way, if you're looking at single women, they heavily trend Democratic.
This is, by the way, not true of single men.
Single men are much more likely to break out more evenly and, in fact, even lean slightly Republican.
But single women are now a key constituency of the Democratic Party.
In fact, unmarried women Favor Democrats 68 to 31 percent.
You remember under Obama that he made some videos about this woman named Julia, and essentially the idea was that Julia was going to be looked after from cradle to grave by the state.
And this was a naked appeal to single women, saying basically if you're a single woman, you don't have to look to a husband or a family, because after all, here we are the government and we are ready to support you.
So So, you've got these single women, and these single women are, well, to be honest, and this doesn't apply to every one of them, but they're a little neurotic.
In fact, surveys have shown that they are the unhappiest group in the American population.
These single women are not happy with their lives.
And by the way, this is self-reported.
It's not like other people are saying, you're not happy.
Look at you. You're not happy because you don't have a husband.
No. These are people who describe themselves as unhappy.
Whereas, by the way, by contrast, the other groups tend to describe themselves as happy.
Single men, by the way, are pretty happy.
They're like, I'm happy being single.
I'll find somebody. Married people are happy.
And married people with children are actually the happiest people in America.
But the single women are unhappy, and they're driving a politics of discontent, which is, I think, helping to define the Democratic Party.
They're angry. If you think our politics has become more polarizing, but not only are they angry, they're angry, but they don't want to allow other people to say things that they disagree with.
So they're also advocates of censorship.
They're advocates of repression.
For example, young women on campus are much more likely than young men to say, oh yeah, hateful speech should be suppressed.
So they don't believe, by and large, in the First Amendment.
And the point I want to make is that, why are we letting the unhappiest people in America drive our politics?
Vladimir Putin called the US dollar's drop in dominance objective and irreversible as Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa formally agreed to use local currencies in trade instead of the US dollar. It's the first shoe to fall. As demand for the dollar weakens, the buying power of the dollar weakens.
And this is why Birch Gold Group is busier now than ever. Investors and savers are looking to harness the power of physical gold held in a tax-sheltered IRA. Debbie and I buy gold from Birch Gold. We trust them to help us diversify our savings. Text Dinesh to 989898. You'll get a free information kit on gold with thousands of happy customers, an A-plus rating with the Better Business Bureau, countless five star reviews. You can count on Birch Gold to help you
navigate transitioning an existing IRA or 401k into an IRA in gold. As the US dollar continues to receive pressure from foreign currencies, digital currency and central banks, arm yourself with information on how to protect your savings.
Text Dinesh to 989898 to get your free information kit now.
Trump's judge in the January 6th case in Washington, D.C. is an Obama appointee named Tanya We're good to go.
Besides, as far as I know, she's heterosexual.
We won't go there in this segment.
But Tanya Chutkin, she has been taking a very sort of ceremonially pompous attitude that politics is not going to be entering my courtroom.
I'm not worried about the elections.
I'm not worried about the schedule for voting and primaries.
We are just going to kind of go by the book.
We're going to go by the law.
And she's also told President Trump, in effect, don't politicize this.
Well, given all that, it's really interesting that Real Clear Investigations has done an in-depth review of the judge's own remarks showing that she is extremely prejudicial.
She is the one who takes not only controversial but highly ideological stances and makes statements about things that are, well, they're her opinion, to be sure, but these are hardly things that have been either widely accepted or have in any way been established or proven.
So, and yet, this is the judge who has been dealing not just with the Trump case.
She's had about 30 of the January 6th cases.
She's also notorious for giving more severe sentences than the prosecution asks for.
So, the prosecutors will say, we want to give this guy probation.
And think about it. This is a ruthless prosecution.
So, these are not guys who are likely to be wanting to any of these January 6th guys to get off light.
And yet, the prosecution says, let's give this guy probation.
And she goes, no, I'm going to throw him in jail.
And then what's interesting as well is that she makes statements that clearly show where she's coming from.
So, for example, we know that in the January 6th case with the special counsel, Jack Smith, he's taking the view that the 2020 election was...
The 2020 election was fine.
It was no problems, no significant fraud, nothing certainly that could have altered the outcome.
And moreover, that Trump was just being reckless and without any justification whatsoever questioning the election.
That is the special counsel view.
We already know that. Well, that happens also to be Tanya Chutkin's view.
How do we know that? Because she has repeatedly said it.
She has repeatedly sort of spilled the beans about what she thinks about the election, and she considers any criticism of the election to be a conspiracy theory.
Here is Tanya Chutkin commenting in a case about a defendant.
He went into the Capitol because, despite election results which were clear-cut, Clear cut?
What? Despite the fact that multiple court challenges all over the country had rejected every single one of the challenges to the election.
Again, what?
The court challenges, not a single one of them looked substantively at the issue of fraud.
There's certainly no court that has looked at the evidence in 2000 mules.
She's talking about procedural judgments that have to do with standing.
Oh, Texas doesn't have standing because Texas is only one state and cannot bring this action in federal court and so on.
And she's acting as if that has somehow settled the factual issue of the magnitude of fraud in the election.
Mr. Palmer didn't like the result.
He didn't like the result.
He didn't want the transition of power to take place because his guy lost.
She's forgetting the fact that these people had legitimate questions about the 2020 election.
And so dismissing these questions out of hand is basically Tanya Chutkin's sort of trademark move.
She pretends like there's no there there.
She pretends like there is nothing to be adjudicated at all.
In another case, and this is a case of Christine Priola, this is a Trump supporter from Ohio, pleads guilty to obstruction of an official proceeding.
And Chutkin actually, in talking about this, almost laments the fact that Trump isn't in prison.
Here's what she says, quote, The people who mobbed the Capitol were there in fealty, in loyalty to one man, not to the Constitution, of which most of the people who come before me seem woefully ignorant, not to the ideals of this country, and not to the principles of democracy.
It is a blind loyalty to one person who, by the way, remains free to this day.
So here's Tanya Chotkin saying, in effect...
She's making two points.
One is, gee, it's a little disappointing to me that I'm sentencing this woman and this guy and this guy and this guy when the guy that put him up to it, Trump, still roams free.
It's almost like, I would love to have a chance to convict that guy.
And guess what? Now she does.
And the second point she's making is that somehow, because these guys voted for Trump and are loyal to Trump, loyal in the sense that they believe that Trump actually won, that somehow this means they are not loyal to the country.
They're not loyal to the ideals of America.
They're not loyal to the Constitution.
So what? Where does a judge get off making these kinds of outrageous and absurd statements that fly in the face of how these defendants understood what they themselves were doing?
The bad news is that judges, even though asked to recuse themselves, and there is a provision in the U.S. Code that says that any justice judge or magistrate judge shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.
The problem is who decides when it's reasonably being questioned.
The judges always say, well, no, I think I can be fair.
I think I can be impartial.
I don't see any problem.
And so, by and large, when judges make statements, even highly prejudicial statements, on the bench, it's very difficult to get them disqualified.
And for this reason, I think that Tanya Chutkin will not disqualify herself, will not be disqualified, and will continue in her prejudicial biased way to adjudicate this case.
If aches and pains are your problem, Relief Factor is your remedy.
Debbie and I started taking Relief Factor a couple of years ago and we've just seen an amazing difference in our joints.
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 exercises, push-ups, planks, and so on that for a long time she wasn't able to do.
So Relief Fact has been a big game changer for her, her aunt, other members of our family, Mike here in the studio, and for many other people.
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. I'd like to talk about an interesting battle that has occurred over the past few months inside of the Southern Baptist Convention.
This is the largest of all the Protestant denominations, and it's certainly the most important of the theologically conservative denominations.
Now, the Southern Baptist Convention has been lobbied by the left and pushed and prodded to liberalize its position on gay rights, on trans issues, and so on.
And this is going nowhere because you're not gonna get a conservative body, theologically conservative body like the SBC to do that.
But there is a little bit of a Trojan horse, a little bit of a wedge issue, something on which even Southern Baptists are a little, well, let's say wobbly or weak.
And that is the issue of ordaining women, of having women pastors.
Not women in leadership positions in the church, which of course exists in evangelical and Protestant churches across the country, but women pastors specifically.
Now, there are other denominations, the Methodists, the Presbyterians, and so on, that do ordain women.
And the point of the Southern Baptists has been that, listen, if we start giving in on one issue, we're going to start giving in on all the others as well.
In fact, you can trace a slip A slippery slope, a straight path, a downward slide on the part of these other Protestant denominations where they started off, okay, we'll ordain women, and then pretty soon it is, okay, well, we're going to accept gays, we're going to ordain gays.
In fact, we're going to punish pastors that show our reluctance to marry gay couples, and then we're going to accept abortion, we're going to allow it, and then in some cases even celebrate abortion.
There was a ridiculous Presbyterian church ceremony A female pastor who said that, quote, abortion is an act of love.
Think of what an abominable statement that is.
In any event, the issue of ordaining women, or having women pastors came to a head because one of the largest members of the Southern Baptist Convention, namely Rick Warren's church, this is Saddleback Church in California, ordained three female pastors.
And not only ordained them, but made an issue of it, basically sort of like, yes, we're doing this, and we are a pioneer, and we're opening the door to this very important development, and we don't think that there's anything wrong with doing this.
Now, interestingly, a small pastor who runs a small church in Virginia decided that he would look into this.
His name was Mike Law.
And so he just wrote a letter to the Southern Baptist Convention.
He happened to know that there is a clause in the Southern Baptist Convention rules that say that you can't ordain women.
And it's based upon a passage in Timothy in Scripture that basically says that the leadership position in a church must be held by a man.
And so, the Southern Baptist rule is based on that.
And so, what this guy did in almost a harmless way is he sends an email to the Southern Baptist Convention saying, hey, listen, is a church that has a female pastor in good standing with the Southern Baptist Convention?
I'm waiting for an answer, and he said, thank you for all the good work that you're doing.
He gets no answer. And of course, why?
Because the Southern Baptist Convention knows that they've got some large churches, notably Rick Warren's church, that have ordained women, but they don't want to make an issue of it.
And so, interestingly, this guy, Mike Law, decides he's going to contact other pastors, and he does.
And they, a bunch of them, in fact, over 20,000 of these pastors No, not 20,000, I'm sorry, but several hundred of these pastors sign a letter to the Southern Baptist Convention saying, we need some clarity on this issue.
The Executive Committee of the Southern Baptist Convention is a little reluctant to put this up for a vote, but there's enough pressure coming from all these Southern Baptist pastors that it goes for a vote.
And so, Nayu, it's kind of a little bit of a David versus Goliath situation because you've got this small-time pastor in Virginia going up against Rick Warren, who not only has a massive megachurch, but is a cultural figure in his own right.
Let's remember, this is the guy who wrote The Purpose Driven Life.
And Rick Warren also trains pastors and claims to have trained thousands of them over the years.
So, a very powerful figure in the Southern Baptist Conference.
But, it does go up for a vote.
It goes before the full convention, and Rick Warren makes an impassioned appeal, and he basically says, hey listen, the Baptist convention rules cover 4,000 words.
We disagree with you basically on one word, which is the word female, before the word pastor.
And he goes, what's the big deal?
But evidently, the Southern Baptist Convention agrees that it is a big deal because by a fairly decisive vote, they decide no.
It doesn't matter that this is a very big congregation.
Saddleback, it is not in good standing with the Southern Baptist Conference because it has ordained women.
It has flouted the rules and the rules are not going to be changed.
So now there's a kind of attempt by the bureaucracy of the Southern Baptists to say, well, what does it mean to be in good standing?
Can you still be affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention, even if you are not, quote, in good standing?
So you can see, again, an effort on the part of the SBC bureaucracy to finesse the issue and not make it a sharp dividing line.
But the point, and I think this is the point of the dissenters, this is the point of the people who carried the vote, That Christianity is about drawing sharp lines where sharp lines need to be drawn.
In other words, where there's a sharp line drawn in Scripture, there needs to be a sharp line drawn by the Church.
And this means that, it doesn't mean that people can't disagree, but it does mean that if they do disagree, they're not in good standing with the Southern Baptist Convention.
Debbie and I are on a great health journey, but we still struggle to eat enough fruits, veggies, and fiber, and that is a requirement.
Well, 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 Balance of Nature's fruits and veggies in a capsule, so easy to take.
Made from fresh whole produce, the produce is powdered after an advanced vacuum-cold process, which stabilizes the maximum nutrient content.
And this is Balance of Nature's Fiber and Spice, a proprietary blend of fiber and 12 spices for overall and digestive health.
Join Debbie and me. Start your journey to better health right now.
Call 1-800-246-8751 or go to balanceofnature.com.
You get 35% off your first preferred order by using discount code America.
Again, it's balanceofnature.com or call 800-246-8751.
Get 35% off your first preferred order by using discount It's been a while.
Well, we were off last week, but you had some dental surgery that put you out of commission.
Yeah. And the worst part of my gum surgery is the not being able to actually eat.
I have to eat mush for a whole month.
So I have one more week to go of mush.
Well, it's interesting how expectations are different than outcomes because before the gum surgery, I think your big fear was the surgery.
You were told that you'd have to eat soft food, but you didn't mind.
You were like, oh no, I'm really worried about the surgery.
I'm really having anxiety.
I was told that I was going to swell up like a chipmunk for like two weeks and all this stuff.
So I was like, oh, you know, and that didn't happen at all.
So, which was really...
Well, fortunately, it's all gone well.
I mean, you handled it really well.
And you've still got, of course, stitches and they might come out this week, right?
Yes. Which I hope that happens.
But in any event, let's start by talking about crime.
You found, Debbie found a very interesting...
It was TikTok, actually, of all places.
Is this even reliable? I think in this case it is, because I think it's a summary based upon research.
It's the top 20 worst cities to live in.
Yeah, let's go on the list. I think it's a fascinating list.
And so maybe we start with number 20 and make our way to number one.
And then I want to talk about an effort to explain this away.
So what's number 20?
So at number 20 is Chicago, Illinois.
A little bit of a surprise because people would probably think Chicago would come in higher.
So it's the 20th least safe city in America.
What's next? And then Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Yeah. George Floyd country.
And then New Orleans, Louisiana.
And then Lansing, Michigan.
Which is just out of Detroit, so it's essentially, yes.
And then at number 16 is Nashville, Tennessee.
15 is Anchorage, Alaska.
14 is San Bernardino, California.
And then at 13 is Oakland, California.
12 is Indianapolis, Indiana.
11, Springfield, Missouri.
10, Albuquerque, New Mexico.
Number 9, Stockton, California.
Number 8, Cleveland, Ohio.
Number 7, Rockford, Illinois.
Six, Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
Five, Little Rock, Arkansas.
Four, Memphis, Tennessee.
Three, Baltimore, Maryland.
Two, Detroit, Michigan.
And then the worst...
I guess the most dangerous city in America came in at number one, St.
Louis, Missouri. St.
Louis, Missouri. St. Louis. Yeah, some of these are a surprise.
They wouldn't normally have been on our radar screen.
We don't think of Rockford, Illinois, for example, or even Albuquerque, New Mexico.
But you look down these cities and you decided to do a little bit of a political inventory.
And what did you find? So of the 20 cities...
One is independently run, that is that the city elections are nonpartisan, and that is Springfield, Missouri.
And then Stockton, California is Republican run, but it was flipped in 2020.
So up until then it was Democrat.
And out of all of them, only, you know, those two.
The rest are all Democrat.
Okay. So this is something that we, I think, understand very well, which is that horrible policies defund the police, demoralize the police, bail reform that allows people basically not to pay bail and basically remain out on the street, commit more crimes, high recidivism rates.
Recidivism simply means the chance that a criminal offender will go back and commit crimes again.
And all of this is now epidemic in these cities.
It hasn't reached the level that it was in the 1970s and 80s, which is when a lot of the tough laws were implemented, but it is headed in that direction.
Now, interestingly, here's a report from the Brennan Center, a left-wing kind of research and advocacy group, and they try to minimize what's happening.
They say, well, it is a problem, but don't blame Soros prosecutors and don't blame bail reform And they provide a series of false arguments to support this.
And I just want to mention a couple of them.
One is they go, research has shown that red states have seen some of the highest murder rates.
Now, if you look at some of these cities, like you look at Memphis, Tennessee, for example, obviously a red state.
Or you look, for example, even at...
Well, Missouri is by and large a red-leaning state, or New Orleans.
But the point is, these are blue cities in the red states.
It's kind of like saying there's a high crime rate in Houston, but that's a red state.
Texas, no. It's a blue pocket within a red state.
So that's why when you sometimes compare red states and blue states, you don't see a big difference because it's the blue people committing the crimes in both places.
The second point is that they say, well, you know, murder rates are going up across the country.
You can't just blame the cities.
And that's a non sequitur.
That's kind of like saying that, guess what?
You can't say that men are taller than women because both men and women grow taller over the years.
In other words, as you get older, you grow.
Well, yeah, you grow, but not at the same rate.
This is the point that there may be a general upward drift of crime.
And there is now increasing crime, for example, even in rural areas.
But the concentration of crime is in these democratically run cities.
So nice try, Brennan Center, but your arguments don't really hold water.
Mike Lindell has a passion to help you get the best sleep of your life.
And he didn't just stop with the MyPillow pillows.
He also created the Giza Dream bed sheets.
Now, Debbie and I use these every day.
They're wonderful. We love them.
The sheets look and feel great, which means an even better night's sleep, which is crucial for our overall health.
Mike found the world's best cotton called Giza.
It's ultra soft and breathable, but also extremely durable.
And Mike's latest deal is the sale of the year.
For a limited time, you get 50% off the Giza Dream Sheets, marking prices down as low as $29.98, depending on the size.
Go to MyPillow.com and enter promo code Dinesh.
There you'll find not just this amazing offer, but also deep discounts on all the other MyPillow products, the MyPillow mattress topper, the robes, the kitchen towel sets, and so much more.
If you want to call, call 800-876-0227.
The number again, 800-876-0227.
Or go to MyPillow.com to get the discount.
Make sure you use the promo code.
It's D-I-N-E-S-H Dinesh.
The impeachment trial of Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is underway.
Now, you might have seen Ken Paxton on this show.
I think he's been on more than once, a couple times at least.
But there is a real effort to get him and get rid of him.
It was driven in the Texas House, which is, by the way, a Republican House.
But a Republican House, I think, we'll talk about this, but I think dominated by...
Sort of never-Trumpers and establishment.
Rhino Republicans.
Which is an interesting question by itself.
How does the House in Texas get that way?
I'll tell you. So let's talk about this impeachment.
What is going on here?
It seems odd. You've got a pretty effective and aggressive Attorney General.
A lot of conservatives think that that's why they're trying to get rid of him.
Right. Well, let me just go back to the whole Texas is red situation.
Everyone assumes that the Texas legislature is conservative.
But I want to put that myth to rest.
It is not conservative.
We are, in the Texas legislature, mostly purple.
And by that I mean the majority of the Texas Republicans are rhinos.
I know this comes as a shock to a lot of people.
And the only way that those Democrats are going to pass any kind of legislation is if they find that the Speaker of the House is friendly towards the Democrats.
So the only speakers of the House that Texas has had have been complete rhinos, meaning they're not right-wing Republicans.
And so because of that, there's a big element of that in the Texas legislature.
Well, this helps to explain what's going on because when you look at, and I'm looking at this somewhat as an outsider, the charges against Ken Paxton, that basically he had an affair, which evidently he has admitted to, that he urged that the woman that he was having an affair with be hired by a real estate developer named Nate Paul.
And as a favor to Paxton, the guy agrees to hire the woman for $65,000 a year.
Now again, this is a little distasteful, but it doesn't seem to me to be a flagrant violation of his oath of office.
Now, admittedly, Ken Paxton has run as a conservative.
He has had the support of evangelical Christians, but I think the point that we were making as we were talking about this on the way to the podcast is this is really a matter for the voters.
Exactly.
Now, Ken made a lot of enemies in the Texas legislature because he was a Texas Senator.
And he ran against the Speaker of the House back then and lost.
But he made a lot of enemies doing that.
So it's not a surprise that they're coming back and trying to oust him.
There's also groups of people that were running against him in the primary that have kind of garnered...
about now is a phenomenon similar to the people running against Trump who will never say, hey we wish that Trump goes down, but they know deep down that if Trump goes down in some way, it opens up the door for them. They have a better chance to make it to the nomination.
Right. Right. And I have to say, you know, the hard part about all this is that I'm a Texan and I was involved in Texas politics before we even met.
So I know all these characters.
I know them all very well.
And it's hard for me to separate myself from that and be objective about it because some of these people are my friends.
But I will say that this, looking at it, In perspective, is a political hit.
The allegations seem almost...
You almost have to try to think about what's even going on here.
Things like, well, when the FBI was investigating this Nate Paul, which is the real estate developer who's a friend of Paxton, Paxton refused to deploy resources from his office to aid that investigation.
So... Paxton hired an inexperienced investigator to look into some of the critics of Nate Paul.
Well, did they find anything?
Were these critics themselves politically motivated?
So you have all these, these are presented as if they are prima facie cases of, oh, that's awful, this guy's got to be thrown out.
And I'm reading them thinking, Where is the...
Impeachment is a pretty serious step.
I mean, when we talk about impeaching Biden, we talk about a guy getting, you know, not a thousand dollar gift that he got as a diplomatic token, but we're talking about millions of dollars being secretly paid into...
That pay them into other LLCs.
Then the money goes to various members of the Biden family, ends up in the pocket of Joe Biden.
I mean, that is straight out bribery right there.
There's nothing like that alleged with Ken Paxton.
So I think, as you say, this is a crass political hit that is done by his political enemies.
Now, Ken Paxton does have defenders and allies, and it's not at all clear that he will be convicted.
The impeachment is brought by the House and the trial is in the Senate.
Interestingly, the judge in the Senate is a friend of his.
So, but of course, he is, you know, he's on the up and up, and so he's not going to do anything dumb or anything, but he does support him.
As does the lieutenant governor.
But I think that those Republicans, in name only, that vote to oust him are going to pay in the primary.
Yeah. Guys, I'd like to invite you to check out my locals channel.
It's going to be the go-to venue for information about the new film, Police State, including a lot of extra footage from the film.
I post a lot of exclusive content on locals, including content that's censored on other social media platforms.
On locals, you get, well, Dinesh Unchained, Dinesh Uncensored.
You can also interact with me directly.
I do a live weekly Q&A every Tuesday.
No topic is off-limits.
I've also uploaded some cool films to Locals, documentaries, feature films, my films, also filmed by other independent producers.
2,000 Mules is up there, and the new film I'm doing this year, Police State, will also get up on the platform.
I'll be giving you the inside scoop on Locals.
So check out my channel. It's dinesh.locals.com.
I'd love to have you along for this great ride.
Again, it's dinesh.locals.com.
We've seen a couple more very harsh verdicts, sentencing decisions come down this week.
For Proud Boys who were found guilty of being involved in seditious conspiracy.
And this brings to five the number of Proud Boys who have gotten convictions of ten years or more.
So let's go through these numbers.
Dominic Pazola, 10 years.
Joe Biggs, 17 years.
Zachary Rail, 15 years.
Ethan Nordean, 18 years.
And Enrique Tarrio, I guess the Cuban-American who was head of the Proud Boys, 22 years.
So let's add it up, 42.
You have five guys doing over 80 years in prison.
And this is just the Proud Boys.
These are just the Proud Boys.
Now, you might think, well, were these guys in the middle of the Capitol battling with the cops?
And it may surprise you to learn, not one of them even went into the Capitol.
Think about that. Isn't that crazy?
That is crazy.
Yeah. So these Proud Boys, what did they do?
Let's be clear what they did.
They were big talkers.
They talked about all this stuff going down, and it's 1776 all over again, and they sent boastful, in the way that young males sometimes do to each other, almost like You know, bragging about the things that they would do.
If things really get hot, we're going to be there, and so on.
But the Proud Boys, by and large, left their weapons outside of Washington, D.C. If they were in Washington, D.C., and not all of them even were in the capital, were in the city at all, Nevertheless, what the government was able to do is bring out all these conversations and chats and emails and boastfulness.
And what you have to do is you rely on a jury to pretend like it's not just talking.
In other words, even though you take no action, it's like someone says, you know, we're going to charge Dinesh with attempted murder because in arguing with a friend, he says, I'm going to kill you.
Well, was Dinesh armed?
Does he take any steps?
No. But you've got to pretend like we don't understand the context of why someone said that.
They're speaking metaphorically.
They're not actually going to kill anyone.
They took no actions to kill anyone.
But nevertheless, they're found guilty of attempted murder because, hey, what could be more clear?
He said, I'm going to kill you. He expressed his intention.
So it is this kind of madness that is going on in these courts.
But the severity of these sentences...
It's awful.
And, you know, here's the thing that I find the most disturbing.
You know how we chat, you know, when we're having our coffee?
Sometimes I say things that, you know...
Oh, we speculate. Yeah.
And, I mean, to think that something like that could make it to a court and sentence us to jail time, even though we were just, you know, chatting about this or that...
Well, I mean, let's spell it out, because people don't understand what we're talking about.
You know, you have these horribles, and I won't be surprised if there are militia people in the country who look at this and go nuts.
You know, in the same way that, what's his name?
What's the name of the guy who blew up the Oklahoma City building?
Yeah, McVeigh. He was present at the Ruby Ridge.
He saw that in...
Not the Ruby Ridge.
Waco. Waco. Yeah.
So what I'm getting at is this has a radicalizing effect.
But you're saying if you casually discuss this, which is nothing more than a commentary on what's actually going on, then the FBI pounces on you.
Wait a minute. Guess what you said?
You were...
Your intent. So they know your intent, even though at the time...
You know, these guys, all of them, including the people that were at the Capitol, including us, thought the election was stolen.
Right? So...
Again, it goes to the fact that the freedom of speech of a lot of these people that really thought, truthfully, this was stolen right from under us, is now an offense that could get you into some murderers.
You know how we watch all the murder shows?
Some of the murderers don't even get this long.
For committing a murder.
Absolutely. All you have to do is look at the, I mean, look at the two, the Indian woman, Uruj Rahman and her co-conspirator.
These are Antifa left-wingers who threw Molotov cocktails.
They did far more than these guys.
They didn't just talk. One guy was driving the getaway car.
She was throwing the Molotov cocktails.
They got a plea deal with the DOJ for, I think, two years.
It's a minimal sentence compared to this.
But again, why are these guys?
They weren't even there.
Exactly. So I think there are two false premises.
Number one, the false premise that there was an insurrection.
There was no insurrection.
And number two, the false premise that they were seditious co-conspirators in this non-existent.
So even if there was an insurrection, they weren't part of it.
But there was an insurrection and these guys did not engage in seditious conspiracy to anything.
There has to be an underlying crime that they sought to commit.
What was that crime?
There isn't one. So this is a gross miscarriage of justice.
It is. And it's, in my opinion, a civil rights violation.
And again, I don't know how we can solve that problem.
They should all be pardoned.
Absolutely. Absolutely. I'm discussing Solzhenitsyn's The Gulag Archipelago, and we now begin with the opening lines.
And the opening scene of this work is so good, I'm going to do a little bit of reading and then occasionally pause to offer thoughts or commentary.
The chapter one is called Arrest.
Arrest. How do people get to this clandestine archipelago?
Hour by hour, planes fly there, ships steer their course there, trains thunder off to it, but all with not a mark on them to tell of their destination.
So here's a key point.
You're taking people off to prison.
Most of them will never be seen again.
You don't want to say what you're doing.
This is similar to the Nazi trains that took people to the death camps.
They didn't say, oh, Auschwitz, destination, Dachau.
No. The idea is that these are unmarked vehicles moving people to an unknown destination.
And at ticket windows or travel bureaus for Soviet or foreign tourists, the employees would be astounded if you were to ask for a ticket to go there.
Nobody shows up and goes, hey, listen, I want a ticket to the Gulag.
No, this is a place to which you are sent involuntarily, unwillingly, dragged, if you will, kicking and screaming.
They know nothing.
They've never heard of the archipelago as a whole or any one of its innumerable islands.
So here is a secret network of prison camps extending across the entire breadth and width of the Soviet Union.
Think of it, the Soviet Union stretched across, what, seven or eight time zones?
And yet, this is a, well, it's a kind of a public secret.
It's there. You kind of have an inkling about it.
People know that their relatives, their family members have disappeared.
Where have they gone? Probably to some sort of a gulag, if not to their untimely death.
And yet, there is no public acknowledgement of this.
It's as if it didn't publicly exist.
How do people get to the gulag?
Not just the people in it, but the other people who administer it, who run it.
Those who go to the archipelago to administer it get there via the training school of the Ministry of Internal Affairs.
This would be the equivalent of our Biden DOJ. The Internal Affairs Ministry trains, if you will, these officers, the soldiers who administer the gulag.
Those who go there to be guards are conscripted via the military conscription centers.
So, there's a kind of special police for the gulag.
They're hired through the military and then they're sent off there.
And those who, like you or me, dear reader, go there to die...
Must get there solely and compulsorily via arrest.
So here we get to the meaning of the title of this chapter, Arrest, because most people who get to the Gulag get there after being arrested.
They are grabbed, they are seized, and they are taken there against their will.
Now, a lot of people who are writing about arrest would say, oh, well, guys got arrested and sent off to the gulag, and then they would move their attention right away to the gulag.
But this is not Solzhenitsyn.
He is a novelist and a writer, and he recognizes that the arrest itself is a stupendously important event.
It's not just important legally, it's also important psychologically.
And so let's look at how Solzhenitsyn kind of gets into it.
Arrest. Need it be said that it is a breaking point in your life, a bolt of lightning which has scored a direct hit on you.
So a beautiful image.
Just as lightning hits you unexpected, knocks you over, in a sense discombobulates you.
You don't even know where you are.
This is now, by analogy, compared to an arrest.
That it is an unassimilable spiritual earthquake not every person can cope with, as a result of which people often slip into insanity.
What's Sol Jensen getting at here?
A spiritual earthquake, he means nothing more than an absolute moral turning around, upside down of your life.
But he says that typically when we live our lives, we develop a certain story around our lives, and that enables us to make sense of it.
And this is such a spiritual earthquake.
It turns things so upside down that some people cannot kind of get back intellectually, can't make sense of their life anymore.
They were one kind of a person.
Hey, I'm a schoolteacher.
Hey, I'm a tax accountant.
Hey, I'm a parent.
I've got these friends.
I belong to this chess club.
I drink vodka on Fridays.
And suddenly... I am a prisoner.
I am a convict.
I am in a different world altogether.
So, who am I? And what Solzhenitsyn is saying is some people can never answer that question.
He continues, the universe has many different centers as there are living beings in it.
It's almost like each individual is a sort of center of the universe or a center of your universe.
Each of us is at the center of the universe and that universe is shattered when they hiss at you, you are under arrest.
That's the phrase. You are under arrest.
If you are arrested, he says, can anything else remain unshattered by this cataclysm?
And then he concludes, but the darkened mind is incapable of embracing these displacements in our universe, and both the most sophisticated and the various, the simpleton among us, drawing on all life experience, can only gasp out, me, what for?
▲
Export Selection