THE EDUCATION OF BILL ACKMAN Dinesh D’Souza Podcast Ep742
|
Time
Text
Coming up, I'm going to talk about the education of entrepreneur Bill Ackman.
This is the guy leading the crusade against the hollow leadership of top universities.
I'll talk about the backlash this has provoked against his family.
I'm going to ask whether Jeffrey Epstein was himself a pawn of intelligence agencies setting up an international blackmail operation.
And attorney Mike Davis joins me.
me we're going to talk about the Supreme Court and the Colorado attempt to remove Trump from the 2024 ballot.
If you're watching on Rumble or listening on Apple, Google, or Spotify, please subscribe to my channel.
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.
This podcast is thumbnaild The Education of Bill Ackman.
Now, who is Bill Ackman?
He's an entrepreneur, very successful guy with connections both to Harvard and MIT. He's married to a former MIT scholar, a woman named...
Bill Ackman is somebody who was kind of going about his ordinary life when the Hamas attacks occurred.
He's Jewish. His wife is Israeli, Jewish.
And he realized something big is going on.
And then he noticed the pro-Hamas propaganda in the universities being promoted at the highest level, including university presidents.
Bill Ackman tried, in his own way, to influence places like Harvard and MIT to tone it down.
You keep talking about protecting minorities.
Why aren't you protecting the Jews?
You keep talking about the fact that you have to restrict the speech of people who are hateful toward blacks or toward homosexuals. Well, what about people calling for genocide against the Jews? And then, of course, you have the three Harvard, the MIT, and the Penn president appear before Congress, and they're asked a straightforward question, which is, is calling for Jewish genocide against your harassment policies?
And all three of them are reluctant to answer, well, it depends on the context and so on.
So Ackman, with his kind of instinct for not just hypocrisy but deep deception, realizes, you know what?
There's a real corruption at the top rank of American universities.
And so he begins a crusade to sort of get rid of Claudine Gay, of Liz McGill, and of the woman named Kornbluth, who is the president of MIT.
Now the Ackman crusade is successful against Liz McGill, she steps down, but it's not successful by itself against Claudine Gay until the plagiarism allegations surface.
And then Bill Ackman jumps on the plagiarism accusations and the combined force of the anti-Semitism scandal and the plagiarism scandal and then bye-bye Claudine Gay.
and now here's the point I'm really getting at.
This is a problem that is not confined to Harvard or Penn or MIT. We are talking about the entrenchment of DEI, diversity, equity, and inclusion, at pretty much all the major universities.
So it's a very powerful force.
And it's not just in the university.
It's outside the university as well.
So the empire, the DEI empire, was bound to strike back.
And now they have.
They're accusing Bill Ackman's wife, Neri Oxman, of plagiarism.
Now, wait.
The plagiarism alleged against her is plagiarism, at least a number of the examples, from Wikipedia, for So when I first saw that, I actually started laughing because I was just laughing at the absurdity of the concept.
Who would plagiarize from Wikipedia?
It's like stealing from a garbage dump.
Wikipedia itself is ridiculous.
It's unbelievably biased.
It's unreliable.
It's a place for launching vendettas.
And if you doubt it, just look up three people.
Look up Bill Ackman. Look up Elon Musk and look up me and you will see the most prejudiced.
It's like our worst enemies wrote our Wikipedia description.
So Wikipedia is not to be trusted.
In fact, in many colleges, you're not even allowed to use Wikipedia because it's so notoriously unreliable.
It's not an authoritative source, even though it's got a pedia as if it's some sort of encyclopedia.
It's not. Anyway, the point about this is that this was clearly an attempt to retaliate against Bill Ackman.
Because think about it.
Neri Oxman's not running for president of Harvard.
Claudine Gay was the president of Harvard.
So isn't it the case that the president of Harvard University cannot be a serial plagiarist?
But as for Neri Oxman, she's left academia.
She's in the private sector.
She's basically running a company that produces computer designs and other types of entrepreneurial stuff.
So... Bill Ackman rightly concluded that they're going after his wife.
And he goes, they're going after his wife to get at him.
Now, Ackman has a very kind of almost a poignant tweet where he talks about the rules of the road.
He goes, the code of the road was that you can attack the protagonist as much as you want but not his wife and kids.
And I would add that this is a principle, by the way, that is in general even respected by the mafia.
I don't know if you've seen the film Scarface where Al Pacino is asked to kill this guy and he's very willing to do it.
But then he notices that the guy comes out and he's accompanied by his wife and their small daughter and Al Pacino goes, no, I'm not doing it.
I'm not killing the wife and kids.
And this ultimately ends in Al Pacino's own death in the movie.
Because of the code.
And the code is that we don't go after the family.
And so here's Bill Ackman invoking the code.
But I see what's happening with Bill Ackman here is he's realizing that for the left...
There is no code.
They don't care.
The principle of cultural Marxism is that you ruin people any which way you can.
Go read Olinsky's Rules for Radicals.
He talks about this. He basically says, listen, if you can avoid using a sleazy and dishonest personal attack...
You should do it. But if you can't avoid it, use it.
Go ahead and use the attack.
The main thing is that the ends justify the means.
The goal is to bring the person down.
Now, to Bill Ackman's credit, he is not backing down.
You might think that he goes, oh, you know what?
I've had such a good life.
I'm a very successful guy.
I'm a billionaire.
I married this beautiful woman.
So you know what?
I'm just gonna back off.
Instead, Bill Ackman goes, guess what?
I'm going to now commission a plagiarism review of everybody at MIT.
All the faculty and the president.
And I'm going to commission a plagiarism review of all the staffers at Business Insider, the journal that approached him about the plagiarism of his wife.
Now, Business Insider is not smart enough to find this plagiarism.
What often happens, and this is kind of the way the media is.
We think of the media, they're digging their investigative reporting nonsense.
A lot of times what happens is, when you're with a guy like Ackman, he's going after the president of MIT. And he's also going after, by the way, the chairman of the board, who seems to have been engaged in some sort of shady tax avoidance practices.
At least this is what Ackman alleges.
And so MIT is hitting back.
And they probably asked or might have commissioned one of their researchers, or maybe the researcher on his own, goes, Listen, I'm going to find some stuff.
Neri Oxman was here at MIT. Let me see if I can run an AI, an artificial intelligence search, identify some plagiarism.
I'll then leak it to businesses or business insiders doing no research.
This is handed to them on a platter and Business Insider becomes the vehicle for a vendetta that people at MIT are launching against Bill Ackman.
So Bill Ackman, who knows this, goes, guess what?
I'm going to turn the tables on you.
And this is, by the way, a theme that I like to talk about and I'm going to...
I like to ask others about, which is fighting fire with fire.
That it's important to treat the left the way they treat us.
They don't expect it. And in fact, they get kind of outraged when you suggest that you're going to do it.
But Bill Ackman is doing it.
Now this morning I noticed that somebody has looked at Bill Ackman's foundation and seen that he gives money to a number of left-wing groups, groups like Planned Parenthood and so on.
And so the point that's been raised by some conservatives on social media is, hey Bill, listen, don't fund the very forces that hate you and hate America and hate the free market.
So be aware.
And Bill Ackman, to his credit, responds and goes, Hey, listen, I need to look into this because I was not aware that through my foundation, it's called the Pershing Square Foundation, I'm giving money to groups that are on the other side.
I mean, this is what we're realizing.
American culture is divided into two distinct camps, and there is a radical left that will use every weapon in its arsenal against us.
Bill Ackman, I think, is somebody who has been slowly, almost unwillingly, educated about the nature of these awful people.
And the good thing is that he is a guy with a spine.
He's not an invertebrate like so many Republicans.
He's a tough guy and he has tremendous resources at his disposal.
And so my exhortation to Bill Ackman is, You realize, I think you're realizing that it's a bigger fight than you even thought, but you are temperamentally, you are in every way perfectly suited to fight this.
You are, in that sense, doing the same thing that Elon Musk and so many others are doing.
You're recognizing that within our society, there are illiberal forces that hate our way of life and are doing everything that they can to destroy America and to destroy us.
My name is Mark Lichtenfeld, bestselling author of Get Rich with Dividends and chief income strategist at the Oxford Club, one of the world's largest and most prominent financial firms, where over 250,000 readers receive my insights each week.
I believe we're entering the greatest oil bull market since the 1970s.
That's why I'm so excited to share this special oil and gas investment with you today.
I've discovered an unusual way to potentially bank massive income from the oil and gas surge 100% outside the stock market.
Oil and gas royalties are a backdoor way to get paid over and over again, and you can get into a top royalty stream for just $25.
This is your chance to get the income you need to truly enjoy life, simply because you made the decision to give the Oxford Income Letter a risk-free try today.
But this opportunity won't last forever.
To learn more about Mark Lichtenfeld's unusual approach to generating monthly income from the oil markets, please visit oilpayday.com.
That's oilpayday.com.
Paid for by the Oxford Club.
Do you know how amazing it is to be able to hear a conversation for the first time in years?
That's the beauty of the hearing aid.
And we've had the pleasure of witnessing MD Hearing Aid's ability to help people we love.
Both my mother-in-law and her caregiver wear them and love them.
They also love how small and discreet they are.
MD Hearing is an FDA-registered, rechargeable hearing aid that costs a fraction of what typical hearing aids cost.
MDHearing's brand-new XS model costs over 90% less than clinic hearing aids.
MDHearing was founded by an ENT surgeon who saw how many of his patients needed hearing aids but couldn't afford them.
He made it his mission to develop a quality hearing aid anyone could afford.
MDHearing has sold over a million and a half hearing aids and they offer a 45-day risk-free trial with a 100% money-back guarantee so you can buy with confidence.
So if you want MDHearing's smallest hearing aid ever, go to shopmdhearing.com, shopmdhearing.com, use promo code Dinesh, you'll get the new hearing aid for just $397 when you buy a pair.
Again, that's shopmdhearing.com.
Use promo code Dinesh to get their new hearing aid for $397 when you buy a pair offer.
I want to talk somewhat briefly about the Epstein files, the release of these Epstein, Jeffrey Epstein, names of people who were associated with him or went to his island.
Very powerful people.
And I also want to reflect upon the fact that how did this guy escape from Who protected him?
How did that really happen?
Because you had, what was it, Amy Roach?
Amy Robach?
What's the name of the... Amy Robach, the ABC reporter.
We had the story on Epstein.
And it got squelched.
Now, I think she also mentioned that exchange Bill Clinton.
And it could be that that is one explanation for how these things happened.
Is it the power of the Clintons?
But it can't just be the power of the Clintons.
Why? And yet Acosta gives Epstein a sweetheart deal in which he essentially gets an agreement not to be prosecuted on a whole host of offenses,
including some future offenses.
And all his co-conspirators get off scot-free.
And Epstein himself does a very short term in prison.
And in much of that term, he's getting food delivered to him.
He's getting the VIP treatment.
He's allowed to leave and, quote, go work for 12 hours a day.
So this is a joke. He's not really serving any type of...
So the point I want to get at is, who has this kind of power?
And is even Acosta just a corrupt or just an ineffective official who goes, I'm going to give this guy a break?
That doesn't make any sense.
It seems to me that there were people higher up, very high up, maybe at the highest levels.
And we see from the Epstein list, even the small lists that we have, that we're talking about powerful people and We're good to go.
Joe Biden. Joe Biden, his name is not in the Epstein list.
I'm not suggesting he was at Lolita Island.
But let's look at Joe Biden for a moment, because in the Hunter Biden laptop, we see that Hunter Biden refers to his dad as Pedo Pete.
That's his nickname for him.
Think about this. A son is nicknaming his own father to be a pedophile.
That's his nickname for Joe Biden.
Pedo Pete. Why would a son do that if there was no truth to it?
Why would he come up with something like that?
And let's remember, this isn't just a case of Hunter Biden.
It's not just a whimsical, you know, this is the way I kind of get you.
And even if it were a whimsical, this is the way I get you, I'm going to get you only because there's some truth to it.
Otherwise, you're not going to use that particular way of getting someone.
And then there's Ashley Biden, who observes in her diary that she would have to hide to take a shower.
And this is when she's actually approaching...
She's of an age where she should be showering alone because her dad might jump in the shower with her.
Wow! So you have Hunter Biden, you've got Ashi Biden.
So Joe Biden basically is a sicko.
I don't know if he's a pedophile in the strict term, but you see him pawing all these young girls.
It's extremely inappropriate.
And I only say this because this phenomenon, which by the way...
I would have thought it would be historically kind of rare.
You think of a pedophile as some guy lurking outside a little girl's school.
You don't think of it as being people at the top levels of American society and American government.
But I think we have to face the regrettable truth that there are people.
There is a powerful network, and it's possible that they're connected to each other.
I mean, this was really what Jeffrey Epstein did, is he brought these people together.
And then a separate question that's been raised, which we don't know the answer to, is was Epstein himself running this blackmail ring together?
Just for himself? So I, Epstein, can have all this control over people?
Or was it at the behest of intelligence agencies, either in the United States or even elsewhere, that were steering Epstein in this way?
Why? So that they have the blackmail power over the top ranks of American society.
They have a blackmail ring that stretches into the entertainment sector, the legal sector, the academic sector, and the political sector.
I think there's so much.
We feel like we know more now about what happened with Jeffrey Epstein, Gillian Maxwell, and that whole evil and corrupt circle.
But I think that there's a lot more...
By the way, including how Jeffrey Epstein died, there's a lot more that we just don't know.
Are you ready to lose weight but not sure where to start?
I understand. Debbie and I were right there where you are a year ago.
Let me tell you why we chose PhD Weight Loss and Nutrition and why I recommend their program so highly.
First, Dr. Ashley Lucas has her PhD in Chronic Disease and Sports Nutrition.
Her program is based on years of research and is science-based.
Second, the PhD program starts with nutrition, but it's so much more.
They know that 90% of permanent change comes from the mind, and they work on eliminating the reason you gain this weight in the first place.
There are no shortcuts, no pills, no injections, just solid science-based nutrition and behavior change.
And finally, probably most importantly, the result.
I lost 27 pounds, Debbie 24.
Hey, we haven't gained the weight back.
That's because... PhD Weight Loss and Nutrition has a lifelong maintenance program.
So if you're ready to lose weight, keep it off.
Call 864-644-1900 to get started.
Or you can go online at myphdweightloss.com.
Do what I did. Do what hundreds of my listeners have done.
And call today. That's 864-644-1900.
As you know, my friend Mike Lindell has a passion to help everyone get the best sleep of our lives.
He didn't just stop by creating the best pillow.
He also created the Giza Dream bedsheets.
I love them. They look and feel great, which means an even better night's sleep for me, which is crucial for my busy schedule.
Mike found the world's best cotton called Giza.
It's ultra soft. And breathable, but also very durable.
Mike's Geezer Sheets come with a 60-day money-back guarantee, 10-year warranty.
They come in a variety of sizes and colors.
And Mike's latest deal, a really good one for a limited time, you get 50% off the Geezer Dream Sheets.
You can get a set for as low as $29.98.
Go to MyPillow.com.
There you find not just this great offer, but deep discounts on all the MyPillow products, the MyPillow mattress topper, the kitchen towel sets, the flannel sheets, and so much more.
Here's the number to call, 800-876-0227.
Again, it's 800-876-0227.
Or go to MyPillow.com to get the discount.
You need to use the promo code.
It's D-I-N-E-S-H Dinesh.
I've been following, guys, the work of attorney Mike Davis on social media for some time now, and I've been impressed by his insightful analyses.
I thought, God, I've got to get this guy on the podcast, and here he is, Mike Davis, founder and president of the Internet Accountability Project, the Article 3 Project, and the Unsilenced Majority.
His website, MikeDavis.Substack.com.
Mike, thanks for joining me. Really appreciate it.
I'm really glad to have some legal expertise in talking about these Trump cases.
And I'd like to begin with the Colorado case.
The Supreme Court has granted cert and is going to be taking up the case, I guess, early next month.
Can you, let's begin by talking about what's going to happen.
Will the Supreme Court be hearing briefs from each side?
Are they going to make a presentation before the court, the typical 30 minutes, and then the court ask questions?
What's going to happen in early February?
Yeah, so the court's going to take this case for oral argument and a decision on the merits.
The Democrats impeached President Trump twice for nonsense.
They indicted him four times for non-crimes.
They've illegally gagged him in two of these court cases, and they're trying to bankrupt his business for non-fraught.
That all backfired. Trump is not beating Trump.
Biden like a drug for November 5th, 2024.
So Democrats have thrown their legal Hail Mary.
They have dusted off this 155-year-old provision from the Constitution passed after the Civil War to keep out of office those who engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the Union during the Civil War.
The Democrats are trying to say that January 6th was comparable to the Civil War It was an insurrection against the United States, which is just laughable.
How many insurrectionists go unorbed into a nation's capital, get to the Senate floor of the nation's capital, walk through velvet ropes, follow police direction, take selfies, and don't burn down the damn place?
January 6th was a lawful protest permitted by the National Park Service that devolved into a riot.
But these Democrat operatives are trying to take Trump off the ballot in blue states Like Colorado, where I am now, and Maine, they want to establish those precedents for the general election to take Trump off of key swing states like Michigan.
So President Biden just wins by default, even though Trump has the support of the American people.
Obviously, the Supreme Court has to take this case.
Obviously, the Supreme Court is going to reverse this Colorado decision, this 4-3 Colorado decision where four partisan decisions Democrat activist judges on the Colorado Supreme Court took Trump off of the ballot.
They say that there was an insurrection on January 6th somehow.
They say that Trump incited that insurrection somehow, even though he told his supporters to go peacefully to the protest.
And then they're trying to say that they, as a state Supreme Court, instead of a federal court, a federal criminal court has the jurisdiction or the power under Article or Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to remove a candidate.
They're wrong on every single score.
The Supreme Court is going to reverse the Colorado Supreme Court.
it should be nine to nothing, but because of these three Democrat activists on the Supreme Court it may be six to three. This is such an easy case, but the Democrats will make this complicated. I mean Mike, isn't it the case that even in the Civil War there was, in the aftermath of it, a desire to bring the country back Southern states, of course, were readmitted into the Union.
And then Congress passed some provisions that said that former Confederates could, in fact, Occupy office, could run for office.
So, you've got this clause in the Constitution that the Democrats are trying to sort of resurrect, you might say, and apply to January 6th.
Now, I'm assuming that they're going to go before the Supreme Court and say that A... We made a factual determination in Colorado that this was an insurrection and we made a separate factual determination that Trump incited the insurrection.
Now, you know and I know that these quote facts are resting on a very shaky foundation.
But do you think that the Democrats will try to say to the court, hey, listen, it's not your job to revisit the facts.
It's your job merely to apply the law.
We have made these factual determinations, and therefore you've got to start with the premise that our factual determinations are correct.
Does the Supreme Court have to go along with that?
That's what, that you're exactly right.
That's what the Democrats will argue.
They'll argue that this bias...
Denver District Court Judge Sarah Wallace, who donated to an anti-Trump January 6th PAC to chase Republicans out of office, then sat on a January anti-Trump January 6th trial.
I sat through all five days of that trial.
Remember what this trial was.
This was an expedited election challenge.
It was not a real trial.
And this judge let in...
Boatloads of hearsay evidence violated Trump's due process rights under the Constitution.
It was not a real trial.
It was an election challenge under Colorado law.
And even if this court were the appropriate place to hold this trial, which it's not, he did not get a fair trial.
His due process rights were violated.
Remember, there is a case We're good to go.
Out of office. Let's step back.
The whole reason for the 14th Amendment, the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments were the post-Civil War Amendments to outlaw slavery, guarantee due process and equal rights to the freed slaves, and guarantee voting rights to the freed male slaves.
But after the Civil War, these Confederates were winning office, and they were undermining the post-Civil War movement.
The post-Civil War Reconstruction effort, they were undermining the Union.
So that's why they included section 3 of the 14th amendment to disqualify them to chase them out of office Well, then Chief Justice Salma Chase said in order to do this You have to have a federal or you have to have Congress pass a federal criminal statute on insurrection or rebellion with a disqualification provision which Congress Immediately did and it's still on the books the updated version of that is is still in the books for insurrection or rebellion with a
disqualification provision.
A federal prosecutor has to charge under that federal criminal statute for insurrection or rebellion.
A federal grand jury has to indict.
A federal jury has to find the defendant guilty unanimously with evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.
The federal judge has to convict.
that conviction must be upheld on appeal. Then and only then can you disqualify under section 3 of the 14th amendment. You can't just have some biased judge on an election challenge in Colorado along with four partisan democrat activists on the Colorado Supreme Court, or even worse, the unelected non-lawyer main secretary of state, Shanna Bellows, just say that there's an insurrection. It feels insurrection-y.
President Trump incited that insurrection and so therefore we're just going to take him off the ballot.
They think that they're going to save democracy by destroying democracy, by disenfranchising millions of voters across America who want to vote for Donald Trump.
That's not going to fly with the American people and the Supreme Court is going to fix this.
This is fascinating, Mike.
I didn't realize that there is, in fact, a specified kind of legal path.
So in other words what you're saying is the Democrats could have chosen to go down this federal route of charging Donald Trump with insurrection, trying to get a conviction and pursue the Article 3 remedy that way.
Why do you think that they decided not to do that? Is it because you do you think that they thought that would they have no hope of prevailing that way?
So think about it The January 6th Democrats and Rhinos spent tens of millions of dollars hunting for evidence of insurrection.
The Biden Justice Department, including Jack Smith, Biden special counsel, partisan hack, Jack Smith spent tens of millions of dollars looking for evidence of insurrection.
The evidence does not exist because A, Trump told his supporters to go peacefully, and B, the riots started before Trump even ended his speech.
Right? And so, and see how many insurrectionists go in arms into a Capitol.
It was a protest that turned into a riot.
You know, do we not think that if Jack Smith could have charged for insurrection with this Obama D.C. Judge Tanya Shutkin and this 95% Democrat D.C. jury pool, 99% Trump deranged because even the Republicans and D.C. hate Trump, you don't think that if they had that evidence...
They would have charged. They don't have the evidence to charge for insurrection because it does not exist.
Mike, what do you make of the fact that here we have these Democrats and they seem willing, as you noted, to pull out all the stops?
They're doing it in the name of saving democracy, but they appear to be willing to toss out all the guardrails of our society.
Do you think that that is because...
They see Republicans as somewhat passive and they think, hey listen, we'll try this on Trump because they're never going to try it on us.
In other words, what I'm getting at is this.
Would it be a helpful or a bad thing for the country right now if five Republican states threw Biden off the ballot and basically gave the same reason?
Essentially that his border policies, his election stealing constitutes...
Two separate forms of insurrection.
And so, this way, the Supreme Court, with great clarity, sees, guess what?
Two can play at this game.
If you're going to open the door to allowing states to do this, it's a free-for-all.
Do you think that's a tactical move Republicans should consider, or are we endangering our democracy too much by being like the gangsters on the other side?
I think Republicans are weak and stupid, and I think we need to give Democrats a healthy dose of their own medicine.
Today's Democrats are Marxist.
They're not your parents, our parents and grandparents, Democrat Party.
These are not liberals who love America and just disagree with conservatives on the best way to get there.
They're Marxist. They hate America.
They hate free speech.
They believe in censorship.
They hate due process.
They believe in Me Too, justice, presumption of guilt.
They hate equality. They believe in equity.
These are Democrats who only respect power.
That is their goal or God is power on earth.
And unless we give them a healthy dose of their own medicine, this will never stop.
I mean, a really good example to me of this is the phenomenon that recently happened at Harvard with Claudine Gay, right?
I mean, they've been canceling people left and right, or I should say, they've been canceling people right and right, everybody right of center, and getting away with it with relative immunity, impunity.
It's only when their guys come under the gun that they suddenly discover the virtues of free speech.
So it seems to me that what you're saying, and I agree, is that in the end, I mean, I guess it raises a larger point about our Constitution and a lot of our documents, that paper documents in the end don't protect us.
That the Constitution is a delicate arrangement for distributing power, decentralizing it, providing checks and balances.
But those checks and balances only work if the people who are the checkers and the balancers exercise that power.
And that's something Republicans have been reluctant to do.
Why do you think Republicans are this way?
Are we just warmed over Reaganites who think that we're still living in 1980?
Or is there some other reason?
I think it's because Republicans are weak and stupid, and they're scared of being called racist and sexist and homophobic and all the other labels that the Democrats use against Republicans to cow us.
And I think that Republicans need to say, you know what, if everything's racist, nothing is racist.
Stop letting them... Cow us with this nonsense and we need to start punching back.
I did this during the Kavanaugh confirmation.
They thought they were going to take out Kavanaugh with these six bogus claims of sexual assault.
They thought that we were just going to run and hide.
There was no way in hell I was going to let that happen because this was so much bigger than Kavanaugh.
If we would have lost that fight, we would have lost the court, we would have lost the Senate, we would have lost the presidency, we would have lost the country.
Think about if we're just going to have this Me Too presumption of guilt where any one of our brothers or fathers or sons or uncles can be cancelled, destroyed because some radical leftist wants to make a political charge against them and accuse them of sexual abuse and their life is over without any due process, with the presumption of guilt.
Hell no. And Republicans need to say to these Democrats, these are republic-ending tactics.
That you're deploying against President Trump and we need to stop this or we're going to lose our country.
And I would say to these country club Republicans, these establishment Republicans, these rhinos, do you really think that this is going to stop with Donald Trump?
They're going after Trump.
His top aides, his attorneys, they're going after parents outraged by gender chaos and the resulting rapes in high school bathrooms.
They're going after Christians praying outside of abortion clinics while they allowed their radical BLM and Antifa and Hamas and abortion activists and trans terrorist supporters to terrorize America.
This is not going to end well unless Republicans step up and say we're not going to take this anymore.
Totally agree. And great stuff, Mike.
We've been talking to Mike Davis.
He's the founder and president of the Internet Accountability Project, the Article 3 Project, and the Unsilenced Majority.
Follow him on the website, MikeDavis.Substack.com.
Mike, thank you very much for joining me.
Thank you very much. We're good to go.
Relief Factor is a daily supplement that helps your body fight back against pain.
It's 100% drug-free.
Relief Factor was developed by doctors searching for a better alternative for pain.
Relief Factor uses a unique formula of natural ingredients like turmeric and omega-3s to help reduce or eliminate the everyday aches and pains you're experiencing.
Whether it's neck, back, joint or muscle pain, Relief Factor can help you feel better.
Unlike pills that simply mask your pain for a short time, Relief Factor helps support your body's natural response to inflammation.
So you feel better all day, every day.
See how Relief Factor can help you.
This is their three-week quick start.
It's only $19.95.
It comes with Relief Factor's Feel Better or Your Money Back Guarantee.
So why not give it a try?
Visit relieffactor.com or you can call 800-4-RELIEF. Again, that's 800-4-RELIEF. Or go to relieffactor.com when you feel the difference.
You know it works. Guys, if you'd like to support my work, here's a great way to do it.
Check out my locals channel and consider becoming a monthly or an annual subscriber.
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, 8 p.m.
Eastern. No topic is off limits.
I've also uploaded some cool films to Locals, documentaries, feature films, mine, but also films by other independent producers.
2,000 Mules is up there, and of course, you know about the latest film, Police State, that's up there.
Also, if you're an annual subscriber, you can stream and watch all this content for free.
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.
I'm discussing C.S. Lewis' classic work, The Four Loves.
And as I mentioned on Friday, the four loves are as follows.
There is storgi or affection.
There is philia or friendship.
There is eros, romantic love.
And then there is agape or agape, which is Christian love or charitable love.
And we're now going to talk about the first type, which is storgi, affection.
And... And I'm really amazed at how insightful Lewis is about something just so basic.
He's talking about affection, which is love based on just mere familiarity.
He begins by saying that this type of love is most...
A type of love that brings us closest to the animals.
And this is kind of what he means is that, look, look at the other three types of love.
Can animals really be friends?
You know, I suppose to a certain basic level, you could say like two dogs or pals, but animal friendship is something totally different than say human friendship.
Obviously, animals are capable of reproducing, but they're not really capable of romantic love in the full sense of the term.
And, of course, animals aren't even expected to engage in charitable love or agape.
That is a human phenomenon.
But, says Lewis Storge, which is affection, you see among human beings and you also see it among animals.
And then Lewis makes, I think, a very interesting point.
He says, listen, just because I'm comparing something to the animals doesn't make it better or doesn't make it worse.
This is really important because a lot of times when we're talking about something, let's just say someone engages in a savage crime, a rape, or a brutal assault.
We will call it animalistic or bestial, which is an allusion to animals.
But think about it.
I mean, animals do engage in violence, but it's violence that is by and large circumscribed by necessity.
An animal will eat another animal because it's hungry.
But animals don't engage in wanton violence.
Ever hear of animal genocide?
Animals also don't really rape in the full sense of the term.
By rape here, what I mean is not simply animals do engage sometimes in forcible sexual contact, but rape is a phenomenon of a rapist lurking in an alley, just raping people as targets of opportunity present themselves.
Animals don't do that.
And Lewis is well aware of this.
Now, he goes on to say that storgi, or affectionate love, is kind of defined by the relationship within a family.
Let's say between parents and children, children and parents.
And Lewis writes this, he goes,"...affection is the humblest love.
It gives itself no heirs.
People can be proud of being in love or a friendship, but affection is modest, even shame-faced.
It has a homely face." And he says, it doesn't take any great qualities to develop affection.
You have a grumpy old neighbor next door.
Every time you see him, he just goes, but Lewis's point is, over time, you get used to the guy.
You kind of smile at him.
He grunts at you. And you're not claiming that he's the greatest guy in the world.
You can't even specify if you were asked to what his good qualities are.
Maybe he doesn't even have any. But even so, he's an object of affection.
Lewis writes it usually needs absence or bereavement to set us praising those to whom only affection binds us.
In other words, his point is that we don't sit around thinking about affection in the way we think about friendship.
Oh, you know, that guy's a really good friend of mine.
And wow, I got to make sure that our friendship gets better this year.
Or, you know, people in love spend all their time thinking about, I'm in love.
What is our love like?
Back and forth, back and forth.
How do you remember our courtship? This was like that.
We spend a lot of time talking about ourselves and our feelings.
Lewis's affection is...
We still do. Uh-oh.
Lewis says, affection's not like that.
You actually don't talk about it.
He says, in fact, it would be kind of weird to go around talking about the fact that, you know, I really feel at home when I'm hanging out with my neighbor or the guy.
So, affection is something that it's only when it's gone.
The guy dies, and you're like, oh, wow, you know, I'm so used to seeing that guy every day where you take a walk.
I see him every day.
I don't see him anymore, and it's kind of a loss.
Affection would not be affection if it were loudly and frequently expressed.
So true. And then Lewis, in very literary fashion, goes,"...it lives with humble, private things, soft slippers, old clothes, old jokes, the thump of a sleepy dog's tail on the kitchen floor, the sound of a sewing machine." So this is Storgi.
It's based upon, and the key word here is familiarity.
Familiarity. Then, says Lewis, affection, besides being a love itself, can enter into the other loves and color them.
And this is a really important point, which is that we think of the four loves and we're making a classification, an intellectual distinction between four types of love, but they can seep the one into the other.
So consider, for example, friendship and romantic love.
Well, romantic love by itself, I would argue, does not sustain We're good to go.
Is something that kind of creeps into a romantic relationship over time.
So, you know, here Debbie and I, we're coming up on our 8th anniversary.
So there are a lot of things about us now we're just kind of used to.
We get our lattes and we sit down and we sort of, we have a little ritual.
And that is just familiarity.
We fall into a routine, and I mean this in a good sense, not a rut, but a routine.
And the routine itself is very comforting.
So, Lewis says, for example, that when you have friends, initially you choose your friends, and you choose your friends based upon things that you have in common with them.
So, you might make a friend because both of you really love to play chess, and every time you get together, you talk about the...
Chess history and the great champions and what's going on with the world tournament and your own games and I could have done this better.
And your focus is on that, the thing that brought you together.
But, as Lewis, if you play chess over, let's say, many weeks and months and years, after a while you notice that, and I noticed this by the way, I used to play chess with a guy in India and for about a year I didn't know his last name.
I just met him casually through a friend.
We started playing chess. We would literally meet, whip out the board, play for like an hour, and then he would like wrap up the board and go home.
And one time my mom says, you know, do you know anything about this guy?
And I go, no. Any brothers and sisters?
I don't know. Where does he live?
I don't know. I knew literally nothing about him.
But over time, he would mention, oh, it's my sister's birthday.
Oh, you have a sister. And so the point being that after a while, the friendship expands to include things that you didn't originally become friends for.
It includes other things you learn about him.
He likes to travel. He likes to do this.
He likes to read certain things.
He knows a lot about the ancient Indian classics and so on.
And so, the point being that that is an example, this is Lewis' example, of philia, friendship, expanding to include storgi.
Storgi is just affection and familiarity.
And so, Lewis calls this the blending and overlapping of loves.
And he gives another insightful example.
He says, he gives the example of the kiss.
And he goes, the kiss is present in multiple forms of love.
Maybe not all, but most.
He goes, in many countries, for example, affection, even affection among strangers is demonstrated with a kiss.
Look at these two Italian guys or even two Greek guys.
They're like kissing each other, you know, just when they've just met.
And yet the kiss becomes a sort of affirmation of familiarity.
It's a way of saying we're already familiar.
We're already connected to one another and we're jumping over all the formalities.
He says that, of course, Eros is distinguished by the kiss, but says, Lewis, listen, let's remember that even though people who are in love or lovers will kiss each other, they don't always do, quote, lovers' kisses.
They sometimes do affectionate kisses.
And so the kiss becomes this kind of broad way of signifying and...
And expressing love.
And another thing Lewis notes is he says, you know, I noticed something kind of interesting between romantic love and affectionate love, particularly affectionate love between, let's say, a mother and a child or parents and children.
He goes, in both cases, you've got this rather weird phenomenon.
And it's the phenomenon of baby talk.
Now, baby talk is a little bit more understandable when you're dealing with actual babies.
So, you know, we have our grandchild Marigold.
We do a lot of major baby talk.
And it's actually kind of funny because she's reaching the stage where she tends to respond with a little, it's a little, I would call it a gurgly laugh.
It's kind of like, it's not really a laughter.
I don't think she quite knows how to laugh, but it's a chuckle.
It's kind of an inward chuckle.
And it's a response to various types.
And Debbie especially likes to give her little pokes and little, what do you call it when you do the gurglies on her stomach?
And she kind of goes...
The blow bubbles. And then also, but it's interesting that adults who are in a romantic relationship, particularly in the beginning, but also continuing, will often use baby talk.
And not just baby talk, but will call each other baby or babe.
So it's kind of an odd thing, but here's Lewis, he's just, and this is what I like about this book, is that it's insightful at the general and philosophical sense, but it's also very insightful in the observational sense.
Lewis will kind of look around and go, well, how do people express these types of love?
And he gives examples where when you're reading this work, and hopefully when I'm talking about it, you have sort of a glimmer of recognition, like, yeah, that is in fact the way it is.
Subscribe to the Dinesh D'Souza podcast on Apple, Google, and Spotify.