Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Feb. 5, 2024 - Dinesh D'Souza

49:35

TAYLOR SWIFT DEMOCRATS Dinesh D’Souza Podcast Ep762

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Coming up, there's a terrible new bill that's come out of the Senate on border security.
	And I'll be discussing that.
	Actor and producer Nick Searcy joins me.
	We're going to talk about the bill and also about his new film, which ties in with border security.
	It's called America Invaded.
	I'm also going to talk about whether Taylor Swift is part of a democratic operation to help Joe Biden get elected or whether there's something else going on For Republicans to learn from.
	Hey, 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.
	There is a horrible new border bill that's just come out, the details of it, and it's going to be voted on in the Senate.
	Happily, it's going to be dead on arrival, according to Speaker Mike Johnson, in the House.
	So this is not going to become law, and yet it's provisions negotiated by Schumer and McConnell and Senator James Lankford of Oklahoma are so disturbing, so shocking, so bad that this subject merits some condemnation and some discussion.
	So I have coming up in the next segment a discussion with the actor and producer Nick Searcy.
	We're going to talk as candidly as possible about this, what's really going on with this border bill.
	But I want to talk in this opening segment about Taylor Swift.
	Now I just learned a moment ago, I can't claim to be an authority on Taylor Swift and Debbie just told me that apparently Taylor Swift has created a new record of Grammys.
	She apparently is the, what is she, the most Grammy-winning person four years in a row.
	She's the number one pop star, and I was like...
	Who did she beat out?
	Isn't Taylor Swift the only pop star in America?
	Are there other pop stars who are competing against her?
	I'm laughing at myself because I'm saying this out of total ignorance.
	Maybe there are all these amazing and famous pop stars, and we just don't know about them.
	But it would be really funny if Taylor Swift is the only one left and she, you know...
	First again! Next year she'll be first again, you know, until a second pop star decides to get into the business and then maybe Taylor Swift will fall into second place.
	They're all 90 or dead.
	Oh yeah, the existing pop stars are like 80 years old and still performing.
	That's really what gets me is they have indefatigable energy.
	And so you've got these guys, they're sort of like, they look like Joe Biden.
	Yeah. But they perform as if they're like 30.
	They're like doing, you know, jumping jacks and stuff, somersaults on the stage and getting all fired up and going for like two hours straight.
	I mean, it's a little bit...
	And don't forget Madonna. And then don't forget Madonna, although even though she denied it, it was kind of funny to see her hanging on to a pole while she was doing certain maneuvers in her last concert.
	Well, here's the interesting thing about Taylor Swift.
	There are a lot of conservatives on social media, a lot of the names that we are familiar with, people like Jack Posobiec and Charlie Kirk and even Vivek Ramaswamy to a degree, and they're talking about the idea that there seems to be a kind of...
	A plot, a psyop, a conspiracy for the Democrats to manipulate Taylor Swift and also her boyfriend, this Travis Kelsey character from the Kansas City Chiefs.
	Now, the conspiracy theory is not outrageous or absurd because it does have some data points to support it.
	Here are some data points.
	One, Taylor Swift tries to convey this idea that she's very traditional, she's from Nashville, she's a country star, but she's clearly a leftist.
	She's a Democrat.
	And we know this because she vociferously campaigned against Marsha Blackburn.
	Now, interestingly, for all the people who talk about Taylor Swift's fabled influence, she couldn't beat Marsha Blackburn.
	Marsha Blackburn won that election and is currently the senator from Tennessee.
	But nevertheless, Taylor Swift endorsed Joe Biden in 2020.
	She's a big advocate for abortion, and she clearly supports the left.
	And then you have Travis Kelsey.
	This is a guy who kneels for the national anthem.
	This is a guy who evidently has been hired or at least paid by Pfizer to do commercials for Pfizer and presumably for the vaccine.
	This is a guy also who has been doing Bud Light commercials to try to save Bud Light.
	So you can see that this is a duo that can be counted on to...
	To support the left. But it still doesn't mean that there's some kind of arrangement afoot to, what, fix NFL games?
	To determine the outcome of the Super Bowl?
	What? Now, I wouldn't be surprised if somehow Joe Biden shows up at the Super Bowl and...
	There's an interview with Biden.
	This is something that the media is likely to do to try to prop up this doddering guy for the 2024 election.
	I wouldn't even be surprised if Taylor Swift announces another kind of get-out-the-vote campaign, because while that can be framed in neutral terms, nevertheless, it is aimed at registering young people, which is to say registering them for the Democratic Party.
	And look, it's not out of the question for Hollywood people or celebrities to coordinate these kinds of stunts.
	I mean, this goes back decades, right?
	Remember, it's sort of like you have an actress in Hollywood whose career is flailing.
	Okay, well, make sure that you're seen with Frank Sinatra and the Rat Pack, you know, at Las Vegas.
	Right? So that's happened before.
	There's nothing about that.
	Or you find that suddenly you have an actor with an unknown person and they're supposedly dating and they're on the cover of Rolling Stone because they were seen at some party and then the actress gets a big role in the movie.
	And this was actually a way that the publicists contrived to get this actress to come to the attention of all the sort of studio moguls and So the notion that people in celebrity land or Hollywood will date, even though they're not dating, will appear in public for the purpose of a publicity stunt, this is all familiar territory.
	There's nothing conspiratorial about this.
	This happens all the time.
	So to this degree, I don't think that it's really far-fetched to suggest that Taylor Swift and Travis Kelsey might be sort of...
	I'm not saying that they're not genuinely dating, but nevertheless, that they're trying to We're good to go.
	You know, Democrats are a little crazy, but their craziness becomes mitigated.
	They don't pay the political price of their craziness when Republicans get even more crazy.
	So what he's saying is that Democratic craziness comes out of usually academia.
	People will say, look at Ibram Kendi, he's such a wacko.
	And Richard is saying, but look, you know, most Americans don't deal with Ibram Kendi.
	Right. Most Americans aren't taking those courses and DEI at Harvard or at Columbia.
	So to them, yeah, that guy's a whack job, but it's like not affecting me.
	But says Richard, most Americans like, they like music.
	They like pop music. They like Taylor Swift.
	They like her songs. Most of her songs about like, you know, I mean, what's kind of funny is that most of Taylor Swift's songs are about, I picked the wrong man.
	That's her theme. So it's kind of funny if she picks Joe Biden.
	I picked the wrong man!
	You should extend the same motif to Taylor Swift's songs.
	She picked the wrong man. This woman has horrible judgment in men.
	That's basically what it comes down to.
	But people still like that.
	And then Richard's point is people like football.
	You know, people basically want to live their own lives.
	They don't want to be bothered by politics.
	So when they see people who are, like, trying to shut down the NFL or think that the NFL is bogus or think that pop music is bogus, then they think that these Republicans are just as weird, if not weirder than the Democrats.
	And this is Richard's point, is Republicans sometimes are giving fuel.
	Now, Those of us who follow politics very closely can say, well, hey, listen, there are, again, a lot of actual indications that there is a coordinated strategy between the Biden regime, the Taylor Swift operation, and maybe Travis Kelsey.
	Maybe they're all working in concert.
	But that's not how it appears to the ordinary American who's not paying such close attention to politics.
	So I think Richard's warning, which is worth our side keeping in mind, Let's stay kind of sober and balanced about all these things, which is not to say don't criticize Taylor Swift, but don't act as if Taylor Swift is some kind of intelligence operative who's been orchestrated by Christopher Wray at the FBI to be part of a scheme to take over the country.
	There is...
	Legitimate and grounded suspicion of what's going on.
	And then there is sheer nuttiness, which is not good for us politically.
	There's a lot of instability globally, elections in Taiwan, North Korea on the brink, Iran increasing its aggression. So how have you sheltered your savings and investments from potential major setbacks to the economy? It's not too late to diversify an old IRA of 401k into gold.
	Birch Gold Group can help you to do that.
	Now as opposed to many other investments, gold thrives in times of uncertainty.
	It is an important part of diversifying your savings.
	It's part of my savings strategy and here's how Birch Gold can help make it a part of yours.
	Birch Gold will help you to convert an existing IRA of 401k into a tax-sheltered IRA in gold and it doesn't cost you a penny out of pocket.
	So check it out.
	Check text to Nesh to 989898 for a free information kit on gold.
	With an A-plus rating with the Better Business Bureau, countless five-star reviews, thousands of happy customers, I encourage you to arm yourself with the knowledge of diversification through precious metals.
	Text Dinesh to 989898.
	Claim your free information kit from Birch Gold and protect your savings with gold today.
	I recently read an article that said 84% of New Year's resolutions fail in the first six weeks.
	Got me thinking about PhD weight loss and nutrition and why it has succeeded for me and Debbie.
	Why we haven't gained our weight back.
	I lost 27 pounds.
	Debbie lost 24. According to this article, most people blame their failure on lack of time, motivation, and a loss of zeal.
	As I was reading, I can clearly see why we were successful on the program.
	It's because they make it simple.
	It doesn't take a lot of extra time.
	They're masters of motivation.
	You have a team of coaches by your side the whole time, and you don't lose your zeal.
	Because every week you make great strides.
	Hey, I lost three pounds!
	So you're excited about moving forward.
	Don't make getting healthy another New Year's resolution fail.
	This year, call PhD Weight Loss and Nutrition.
	Make 2020 for your year.
	Here's the number to call.
	Write it down. 864-644-1900.
	Or you can go online at myphdweightloss.com.
	Don't do this alone.
	The number to call, 864-644-1900.
	Guys, the number one issue in the country, the border.
	And we now have this border bill that has come out of the Senate, apparently negotiated by McConnell, Senator Lankford of Oklahoma, and the Democrats.
	And here to discuss this with me, and also to talk about his new film, Nick Searcy.
	Nick Searcy, you know, he's a famous American actor.
	He starred in dozens of movies and TV series.
	Of course, his greatest role in Police State.
	I hear you chuckling about that, Nick.
	You can follow him on X at YesNickSearcy.
	By the way, the documentary, the new one we're going to be talking about, Nick is the narrator.
	It's called America Invaded.
	We'll get to that. Nick, welcome.
	Thanks for joining me.
	And we just got the details of this new border bill.
	Now, President Biden has been saying, I need to have this authority, give it to me and I will spring into action to, and I can kind of see his enthusiasm because when you look at this bill, oh my gosh.
	It is a complete giveaway to the Democrats.
	Now, I know Senator Lankford is defending it.
	He's saying, oh no, we're not really going to be letting 5,000 people in a day.
	But do you see it the way I do that this is just bad news?
	And to me, the real question is not even so much what's in the bill.
	We can go through that, but...
	How would any Republican in his right mind come up with this or sign off on this?
	No, no Republican in his right mind would support this, and anyone who does isn't really a Republican.
	By allowing 5,000 a day...
	What that means is that it's going to be more than that.
	That's just the baseline.
	And the other thing that I find totally ridiculous about it, and it happens so many times with these bills, is that they tie this bill to aid to Ukraine and aid to Israel.
	It's like those issues...
	They're not tied together.
	There's no reason to put them in the same bill, except that you're using this idea of border security to secure the unpopular funding for Ukraine and Israel.
	I mean, isn't it true that in some ways there's a contradiction here?
	Because what are we doing? I mean, we're protecting Ukraine's border.
	From Russia, right?
	Israel is trying to secure its borders from invasion, attack by Hamas.
	So other countries' borders evidently do matter to us, because think about it.
	If we didn't care about Ukraine's border, then hey, Putin, march on in.
	But we are securing Ukraine's border and yet there is this brazen indifference to our own border.
	Now, I can sort of understand why the Democrats like this idea.
	I mean, the way I see it, they're like, okay, we don't mind destroying the country as long as we get a permanent hold of it.
	And so if we can alter the demographics of the country, the country may be a mess, but it'll be our mess.
	We'll be the gang lords in charge of it.
	But let's turn again to the psychology of a guy like McConnell.
	Now, help me to – what sense do you make of this?
	I mean, to me, McConnell, for most of his career, has actually been pretty solidly conservative.
	I wouldn't call him a rhino.
	He's blocked some very bad things that have come down the pike in the past, and yet his behavior of late, to me, has been utterly inexplicable.
	Do you think that this is a guy who's just sort of lost it?
	Well, it's mystifying.
	I mean, it makes you suspicious of, you know, maybe he's compromised in some way.
	Maybe there's some other thing going on behind the scenes that we don't know about because it doesn't make sense.
	It's not consistent with some of the things he's done in the past.
	And I think that in a lot of cases, that's true.
	I mean, I'm not... I don't have any inside knowledge or anything, but it certainly seems like anybody that would support this that claims to be a conservative, claims to be a Republican, claims to care about American integrity and voting integrity would never support anything like this unless There was some other motive behind the scenes.
	I mean, to me, it almost suggests a complete lack of knowledge of your own constituency.
	Now, you mentioned earlier this business about tying, you know, here you go, you're 20 billion for border security.
	14 billion for Israel, 60 billion to Ukraine.
	So right there, just the numbers show where the priorities are.
	And maybe that's the key to the answer.
	Maybe for McConnell, it's all about Ukraine.
	He doesn't even care about the border.
	He goes, if I have to use the border as a catapult to get more money to Ukraine...
	Then this is a ruse to do that.
	I mean, that would perhaps make sense of what McConnell's motives are.
	The other guy that puzzles me, by the way, look at Lankford.
	He's coming from Oklahoma, one of the most conservative states in the country.
	And now with the way that this immigration problem has metastasized throughout the country, it was a huge issue in Iowa, it's a huge issue in New Hampshire.
	Places that normally aren't touched by the border, but this is such a problem, it's so serious, everybody's touched by it.
	How would a guy like Lankford explain this madness to his own constituents?
	Yeah, and that's the thing.
	It's political suicide.
	I mean, he knows that this is going to cost him his seat in the Senate, so why would he support something like this, knowing that almost everybody in his state is against it?
	And I mean, going back to the Ukraine and Israel funding as well, they should have called this the Ukrainian border funding bill instead of, you know, our border, because if the most of the money is going to the Ukraine, then, you know, it's a sliver of it that goes to our border.
	Absolutely. It's not a mistake, Dinesh.
	This is being done deliberately.
	This is not incompetence.
	This is deliberate.
	I mean, I think what supports that to me is the fact that Lankford and McConnell have known what is in the bill four weeks, if not four months, because they've been negotiating it.
	And they have very carefully prevented the details of this bill from getting out.
	Why? Because they probably knew that it would cause a firestorm.
	So their idea was, let's be on the down low, let's kind of do the little handshake with the Democrats, then let's drop the bill at the last minute and try to rustle up an immediate vote.
	Now, I gotta say, this is a case where the House does appear to be standing firm, which is to say, I see Mike Johnson, the leadership, Steve Scalise, one after the other, like, this is dead on arrival.
	This is not even going to be voted on in the House.
	They're not even going to bring it up.
	Which is good news for us, because it means the bill is not going to become law, at least certainly not in anything like its current form.
	But I'm still mystified and disturbed by the fact that we have, I mean, I don't know right now if you had a vote in the Senate, 10 Republicans would have to vote for it.
	Would there be 10?
	I mean, I'm going to count the people I think would vote for it.
	I think Romney would vote for it.
	Probably John Corn in Texas would vote for it.
	We know Lankford would vote for it and McConnell.
	That's four right there.
	Can they get to 10?
	I don't know. But the fact that we don't know is a very bad sign because the level of betrayal by the Senate, by Republicans in the Senate, very disturbing.
	Yeah. Well, it bolsters the argument that it's a uniparty, you know, that there really is only one party.
	They just sort of adopt these labels in order to have debates on television and get some TV time, but they're not really very much difference between the parties.
	Yeah. I've resisted that, Nick, for the simple reason that we need to have something to fight against the bad guys with, right?
	And what do we have if not the Republican Party?
	So my view has tended to be our guys are lousy, but they're the lesser evil.
	Or to put it somewhat differently, they might submit out of timidity or cowardice.
	But they're not the malevolent forces driving this train, so to speak.
	We know that that's coming from the left.
	But see, here's Chuck Schumer.
	I have never worked more closely with Leader McConnell on any piece of legislation as we did on this.
	So that's got to mean that what came out of this is the joint product of Of Schumer and McConnell.
	And that alone, I think, confirms the idea that we're dealing here with guys who are on our side who seem to be more closely aligned with the other side.
	I mean, I'm having trouble taking that fully on board.
	Yeah, I think it may not even be that they align with the other side, but they align with the ruling class.
	They align with this idea that they are a class above the American people, and so they've got to preserve their positions because they're the smart ones, they're the ones that know how things work, and their value to the nation is so important that they have to preserve their position.
	You know, one other thing that I saw this week was, I believe it was Senator Durbin on the Senate floor, talking about how now if you are in the country illegally and you can pass a fitness test, you can join the military.
	that that's the ultimate goal.
	They want to take these people that are coming across the border and make them citizens, make them people that can vote.
	And by putting them in the military, they're creating a military that has people in it that have no allegiance to America.
	They're not really even Americans, but they're going to put them in the military?
	It's very sinister.
	It's mystifying.
	I mean, the extremism of the provisions in this bill, I mean, taxpayer-funded lawyers for illegals.
	Start right there. U.S. taxpayers ask to pay for attorneys for illegals.
	Number two, there are these emergency provisions that supposedly block immigration or block the illegals, but Biden has the unilateral authority to override them.
	So you got the guy who won't shut the border, and he has the unilateral authority to cancel the provisions of this exact bill if he feels like it.
	So this is beyond absurd.
	And I mean, I think it would be very demoralizing if this passes the Senate.
	It would be good to see it defeated in the Senate and then also killed in the House, because that would show that the Republican Party still has a modicum of sanity and a modicum of attachment to its voters.
	But I'm a little...
	Are you confident that we'll defeat it in the Senate?
	Yeah. No, not really.
	I'm worried about the House, too.
	I mean, it's such a slim majority in the House that it could peel off a couple of Republicans and it could pass.
	But the real problem with this bill is that it's completely unnecessary.
	Joe Biden could stop this tomorrow.
	All he has to do is rescind the executive orders that he put in place on his first day in office.
	He can close the border.
	He's got the power to do that.
	He doesn't need this bill.
	All of this is nonsense.
	All of it is theater.
	He could do it tomorrow.
	When we come back, I want to ask Nick Searcy about his new film.
	It's called America Invaded, and it is about terrorism and the border.
	Do you know how amazing it is to be able to hear a conversation for the first time in years?
	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, so he made it his mission to develop a quality hearing aid anyone could afford.
	MD Hearing has sold over 1.5 million hearing aids, and they're offering a 45-day risk-free trial with a 100% money-back guarantee so you can buy with confidence.
	So if you want MD Hearing's smallest hearing aid ever, go to SHOP. ShopMDHearing.com and use promo code Dinesh.
	You'll get their new hearing aid for just $397 when you buy a pair offer.
	Again, that's ShopMDHearing.com.
	Use promo code Dinesh to get their new hearing aid for $397 when you buy a pair offer.
	ReliefFactor three years ago and we have seen a huge difference in our joints.
	Nothing short of amazing.
	Aches and pains are totally gone thanks to this 100% drug-free solution called ReliefFactor.
	It's a natural way to fight pain.
	ReliefFactor is a daily supplement that helps your body fight back against pain.
	It's 100% drug-free.
	ReliefFactor was developed by doctors searching for a better alternative for pain.
	ReliefFactor uses a unique formula of natural ingredients like turmeric and omega-3s to help reduce or eliminate the everyday aches and pains you're 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 with this, their 3-week quick start kit.
	It's only $19.95 and it comes with Relief Factor's Feel Better or Your Money Back Guarantee.
	So, what do you got to lose?
	Why not give it a try?
	Visit relieffactor.com or call the number 800-4-RELIEF. Again, it's 800-4-RELIEF or go to relieffactor.com.
	When you feel the difference, you know it works.
	I'm back with actor and producer and director Nick Searcy.
	Follow him on X at YesNickSearcy.
	The documentary film we're talking about is called America Invaded.
	It's about terrorism.
	It's also about the border.
	Nick, I mean, this could not be a more timely film.
	This issue is front and center.
	And yet the film itself...
	Isn't just about the border.
	It seems to be about a kind of nexus, a connection between the military, the terrorist threats abroad, and maybe those terrorist threats being brought home to America via the border.
	How would you summarize the theme of the film?
	Well, it's really about the consequences of having an open border and the fact that we don't know who is coming across.
	And the film, it really goes in places that I wasn't expecting when I first saw it.
	I mean, Namrata Singh Gujral, who produced this film, she talks to a lot of parents of children who their children enlisted after 9-11 because of their love of the country, and they felt they wanted to fight in the war on terror and lost their lives, lost limbs.
	And she continually asked the question, why should we expect America's youth to sacrifice their lives for this country when this country won't protect itself.
	They won't protect the border to keep the things that happened in Israel from happening here in America.
	And that's what the film really shows, is how there are terrorists from terrorist countries coming across the border, and we don't know about it, and what are they going to do when they get here?
	I mean, I remember right after 9-11, one of the consistent themes that was discussed was the fact that America needs to strike at the bad guys over there so that they won't be able to bring their bad behavior, their terrorism, over here.
	Yeah. We are not even paying close attention to who's coming through the border.
	I mean, it would seem to be a fact if you or I were a leader of Hamas, don't you think that we could easily get a thousand people through the U.S. border, the exact number of people who were involved in the October 7 attacks in Israel?
	I mean, it's much harder to get through the Gaza checkpoints than to get through the southern border, isn't it?
	Yes, absolutely.
	And when you look at the footage that you see from the border, these are not families that are coming across the border.
	These are young, military-age men that could potentially be enemies of the country, but we're not even vetting them.
	We don't know who they are.
	And that's the point. That's the point this film makes, is that these people could be incredibly dangerous to our country, and yet our officials are not even taking the time to find out who they are.
	And that's what brings up the point of like, why are they doing this?
	And it goes back to what I was saying before.
	I think this is deliberate.
	This is not incompetence.
	Incompetence can't explain this.
	They are intentionally allowing this to happen.
	I mean, I would reinforce that point by saying this.
	If I were Joe Biden or if I were the Biden team, I'd say to myself, look, you know, even if I want to let a bunch of illegals in, I want to make sure that terrorists don't get in because guess what?
	If they do a major terrorist act in America, who's going to be blamed for it?
	Biden, right?
	The administration is going to be blamed for it.
	So why would I be so reckless as to let these guys in Knowing that they may be plotting these attacks, which will then fall upon me.
	So, what possible reasoning, what possible motive, even if you were going to be conspiratorial about it, why would Biden want this?
	Why would the Biden gang want this?
	Well, I think they probably believed, rightly so, that they'd be protected by the media, and the media would say it was happening because the Republicans didn't pass the border bill.
	Yeah, that's right.
	Well, that's the level of propaganda we're dealing with, and you're quite right about that.
	If that were to happen now, but even prior to the border bill, there was no border bill.
	And for the last two years, the administration has been looking the other way.
	I mean, you know about this fentanyl, there's child trafficking, there are potential Chinese guys, Pakistani guys, Hezbollah guys coming over.
	We know Hezbollah as a presence in Mexico, for example.
	And so, I mean, I guess there are some people who just go...
	That the Biden regime wants to destroy the country.
	I mean, even for us who are very skeptical, it's a little difficult for us to take that idea and go, yeah, that's right.
	Could that be it? Well, I think that, too, the level of corruption in the Biden family is so high that they could be just being paid off.
	It's beneficial to them to allow this to happen, and the people that are paying off these politicians like Biden are America's enemies.
	So, they're saying, you know, if you want the money to keep flowing, you've got to keep the money flowing to the Ukraine.
	We'll get this back to you.
	But, you know, you have to allow this to happen or else we're going to expose you.
	I mean, there could be blackmail going on.
	There could be all kinds of things happening behind the scenes.
	And I'm not...
	It sounds like a bunch of conspiracy theories, but I don't see any other explanation for it, because it doesn't make sense.
	As you just said, why wouldn't a President Biden want to protect the border to protect his reputation, if nothing else, from a terrorist attack that might occur here that would be blamed on him?
	The only explanation to me is that he has some ulterior motive.
	I mean, my mind flashes back to the aftermath of World War II. You remember the Rosenbergs were executed for treason with the Soviet Union.
	But I got to say, if what you say is true, these people are worse than the Rosenbergs.
	Because to sell out your country for cash to a foreign entity?
	I mean, the Rosenbergs were communists.
	They actually believed in the idealism, crazy though it is, of the Soviet Union.
	They were not motivated by money.
	They didn't do it for money.
	And so, alright, that's what they believed.
	But for someone to say, listen, I will put the lives of my fellow Americans in danger because somebody is slipping money in a suitcase under the table, I mean, to me, that is really the worst form of treason.
	It really is. I mean, you can kind of respect the Marxists that actually believe in what they're advocating and trying to bring about.
	But yeah, the level of corruption and just criminality in the Biden administration is...
	It's shocking. It's been proven over and over again.
	The media poo-poos it, but, you know, he used his son as a bag man.
	There's no telling how much money has changed hands, and that's a big motivation.
	If what you want is money, that's a big motivation.
	Nick, let's close out by me asking you about the power of a film like America Invaded.
	If I were to make the case for these documentaries, I would say that, look, a lot of Americans might know about something, like there's bad stuff happening at the border, and maybe you've seen some clips on social media about it.
	But there's a great power to taking people who are perhaps not all that plugged into politics And just showing them what this looks like.
	Because that makes them go, whoa.
	I mean, that was the effect of a lot of people who saw Police Day.
	It's like, whoa. These are ordinary people talking.
	I had no idea that this was going on and to such an extent.
	Do you think that this film might have the potential to do that?
	In other words, it's show, not tell.
	And there are Americans who have been relatively numb, indifferent, bored, distracted, occupied with other things.
	But they see this film and they're going to realize what?
	Well, to me, this film really brings home the impact of American policies on our military families and, you know, talking to mothers and brothers who've lost their sons or their brothers and to the veterans who've lost limbs and how their lives have been affected by these policies.
	That's the part of it that I think really is the most impactful and could really change hearts and minds because These things aren't just policy arguments in the abstract.
	These things affect people's lives in a very visceral way.
	And that's the most important thing about this film, I believe, is, is you get to see what are, what are, uh, the policies do to normal Americans, just people who are willing to step up and fight for this country and, and die for this country.
	And then to have the, the country turn around and, and let terrorists potentially just walk across the border after they've given their lives, after our soldiers have given their lives to fight them over there, now we're letting them come in.
	And that's what I believe this film can, can show the American people.
	I mean, it helps me understand not only why the military has a recruiting problem, but why it actually deserves to have a recruiting problem.
	Absolutely. Because people are saying, you know, you're signing me up, but for what?
	Guys, the film we're talking about is America Invaded.
	We've been talking to Nick Searcy, award-winning actor and producer.
	Follow him on X at YesNickSearcy.
	Check out the film. Nick, as always, great to have you on the podcast.
	Good to see you again, Dinesh.
	Mike Lindell and the employees of MyPillow want to thank my listeners for all your continued support.
	Thank you.
	They're having an overstock clearance sale right now for the best prices ever when you use promo code Dinesh and you get free shipping on your entire order.
	Get 50% off the MyPillow 2.0, the classic pillow, also on the brand new flannel sheets They won't last long. You can get a six-pack towel set for just $29.98.
	And take advantage of the free shipping on the larger items like mattresses and mattress toppers.
	They're 100%. Made in the USA, on sale for as low as $99.99.
	So everything is on sale, from the brand new kitchen towels, the bath towels, the dog beds, the blankets, the couch pillows, and so much more.
	Check out the deals to get the best specials ever.
	Go to MyPillow.com, use promo code Dinesh, or you can call 800-876-0227.
	The number again, 800-876-0227.
	Get free shipping on your entire order while supplies last.
	We're now entering the section of the Lincoln-Douglas debates, the section in Harry Jaffa's book called Crisis of the House Divided, and this section is called The Case for Douglas.
	So what we're going to do over the next few, maybe the next several days, is try to understand Douglas' view as if we were Douglas.
	We're going to then turn around in the second part of our discussion and look at the case for Lincoln, and so we'll understand many of the objections to Douglas and how Lincoln ultimately was successful in being able to defeat Douglas's argument.
	Now, was Lincoln successful in defeating Douglas?
	Yes and no. No, because Lincoln lost the election.
	Douglas became the senator from Illinois.
	But Lincoln did well enough that he became a serious candidate.
	In fact, he became the Republican candidate two years later for the presidency in 1860, and he was able to defeat Douglas and another guy named Breckinridge at that time.
	So Lincoln's record against Douglas was losing the Senate race.
	But winning the presidency two years later.
	But what Lincoln was able to do is defeat Douglass' argument.
	And this became very critical for reasons that we will see.
	But to summarize, Douglass was a Northern Democrat.
	And he was a Northern Democrat who had a lot of support in the South.
	But he also had considerable support in the North.
	Now, if Douglass was able to maintain his support in the North and hold on to his support in the South, he would surely have defeated Lincoln not just in 1858 but also in 1860.
	So Lincoln's supreme task in these debates was to cut Douglass off I think?
	As a formula that would help slavery.
	That even though it was not explicitly designed to promote slavery, in fact it professed a certain type of indifference to slavery, let every state, let every territory decide for itself if it wants slavery, nevertheless it would be Lincoln's burden to show that this was in fact effectively a A pro-slavery platform.
	But we're going to start by looking at Douglass' side of things.
	And from Douglass' point of view, he was not pro-slavery.
	In fact, as we will see, Douglass saw himself to some degree as anti-slavery.
	But nevertheless, Douglass held it as an official position.
	He had to be indifferent to slavery.
	Why? Because slavery was not a matter of Douglass' whole point is that slavery is a matter for the states and for the territories to decide.
	So you can see why from that sort of jurisdictional point of view, Douglass said, if I'm going to come out and be anti-slavery or pro-slavery, either one...
	I'm basically dictating what the country's position on slavery ought to be.
	And my whole view, the whole meaning of popular sovereignty, is that the country takes no position on slavery.
	Slavery is a local matter, the same way that crime is a local matter.
	And so many other issues are decided on the state level.
	And so slavery ought to be one of those issues.
	And for this reason, I'm going to maintain a public...
	Agnosticism, let's call it, on slavery, not because I don't have any views, but because I believe that this should be decided by each state and territory for itself.
	Interestingly, Harry Jaffa tells us that if you study the Lincoln-Douglas debates today, a lot of historians take the view that Douglass did not believe that moral issues belong in politics.
	Douglass somehow took the view that politics is really all about bargaining and It's all about self-interest.
	It's all about making compromises.
	And Douglass was in that sense, let's call him a transactional politician as opposed to a politician with a substantive moral vision.
	And Harry Jaffa is going to go on in these next few chapters in the case for Douglass to show that's not true.
	That's not true. That's not how Douglas saw himself.
	So let's try to learn a little bit about this very interesting man, Stephen Douglas.
	He was a short guy.
	Five foot four, maybe five foot five.
	And yet he was called the Little Giant.
	Why? Because even though he was a little guy, he had a powerful, bellowing, and also very arresting voice.
	More powerful than Lincoln's.
	He was known, in fact, as an orator, as a great speaker.
	Lincoln was not. And Douglass was far more famous than Lincoln at the time of these debates.
	Now, Stephen Douglas was a Democrat.
	He was a Democrat in the Andrew Jackson tradition, which is to say, now, Andrew Jackson was a slave owner.
	Stephen Douglas was not.
	In fact, Stephen Douglas lived in Illinois, which was a free state.
	But one of the things that Andrew Jackson believed in is that the slavery issue should not be allowed to become a cause of sectional strife, meaning strife between the North and the South.
	It's better to diffuse that.
	It's better to prevent that from happening.
	We don't want a civil war.
	And that was very much Douglass' view.
	Douglass' view is that we avoid a civil war by finding...
	Some kind of middle ground between the North and the South.
	Now, in 1824, and I'll have to pick this up next time, I'm just going to allude to it and mention it, the compromise that held the country together was called the Missouri Compromise.
	The Missouri Compromise of 1824 was essentially to draw a line, this was the Mason-Dixon line, running between the north and the south.
	The line was not a straight line, at times it was sort of a jagged line, but nevertheless it was a roughly straight line, which said, in effect, that slavery will be permitted.
	It will not be mandated, it will be permitted south of the Mason-Dixon line.
	But it will not be permitted north of the Mason-Dixon line.
	So very simply, this is the Missouri Compromise.
	It's kind of a bargain. You northerners don't want to have slavery?
	All right, we'll have a line.
	And north of the line, we will have free states.
	South of the line, we will allow slavery.
	Now again, southern states may decide, I don't want it.
	They could decide, we tried it, it's profitable, we're going to let it go.
	It's not profitable, we're going to let it go.
	But slavery will be permitted if these states want to have it south of the Mason-Dixon line.
	And this Missouri Compromise holds the line, keeps the peace, you might say, between 1824 and 1860.
	Now, there were modifications made to the Missouri Compromise.
	There was an important bill called the Compromise of 1850, which redrew the Missouri Compromise line.
	But it redrew the Missouri Compromise line with a form of swapping.
	And what I mean by that is that obviously as new territories were added to the Union, as the country kind of opened up to the West, It wouldn't be as easy as to have a straight line.
	And so what you'd have is you'd have a state that was touching the south, but somewhat to the north, and they didn't want to have slavery.
	And you have another state that's touching the north, but somewhat to the south.
	And so the compromise of 1850 was, all right, we'll let the mostly northern state be counted as north.
	We'll let the mostly southern state be counted as south.
	and we will keep the Missouri Compromise, but now with this modified diagram, if you will.
	That was called the Compromise of 1850. It was the collapse of the Compromise of 1850, and ultimately the repudiation. Douglas himself led the campaign to overthrow the Missouri Compromise and introduce a completely new idea, and the new idea for the whole country, popular sovereignty, and it was this that was the core issue of the Lincoln-Douglas And it was this same issue.

▲