All Episodes
Previous Next
March 8, 2024 - Dinesh D'Souza
47:48
OUT ON HER FANI Dinesh D’Souza Podcast Ep786
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Coming up, I'll discuss some new evidence pointing to the imperative of Fannie Willis' disqualification.
And yet, I'm going to give you a couple of reasons why the judge might be running scared.
Debbie joins me. We're going to talk about how the GOP can win in November.
Why Hispanics in the Rio Grande Valley vote against their own values and interests and how Javier Millet's success in Argentina might point the way for conservatives to secure the Latino vote in this country.
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.
We are all waiting for the judge's decision.
This is Judge McAfee in Fulton County, on whether or not to disqualify Fannie Willis and Nathan Wade from the Trump Georgia case.
If he did disqualify them, the case would go into disarray.
It doesn't mean the case by itself would be dismissed, but there is some question about whether anybody else would even take it up.
Pretty much everyone in Fannie Willis's office would be out of bounds, they would not be able to do it.
So at the very least there would be a lengthy delay and for all practical purposes the case may be kaput before the election.
Now, while it seems like there is a good deal of evidence to disqualify Fannie Willis, we should also strike a cautionary note, actually two cautionary notes.
One of them is that the criteria for disqualification is a little vague.
It's not obvious what bar you have to meet exactly in order to be disqualified.
Now there is some case law on it and there are cases where you have attorneys who have been attorneys representing the district attorney's office have been disqualified based upon not just an actual conflict of interest, not just actual corruption, but in some cases even perceived corruption, perceived conflicts of interest.
And if those cases provide a reliable standard, then Fannie Willis is going to get the boot.
But the law itself does not specify a two-part or three-part test that you have to meet in order to be disqualified.
So the judge has a fair bit of discretion.
Now, we know that this judge has given a contribution, a small one, to Fannie Willis in the past.
And a new development is that there is apparently a left-winger, a Jesse Jackson protege, a Jesse Jackson disciple, who is now challenging the judge for his re-election.
And I think that this is going to play a role in this decision.
Let's think about why.
The judge previously, this is Judge McAfee, was running unopposed.
But now you have another guy who's thrown his hat, so to speak, in the ring.
And the judge is going to think, oh wow, I am now facing a challenger who is clearly from my left, who is on the left, and who's going to say to people, this is the judge that got rid of our beloved Fannie Willis.
So the question is, will that influence the judge and make him more reluctant to disqualify her because he now has a challenger?
Now, of course, to say this is to acknowledge that our courts are not the sort of pure systems of justice that we expect them to be, want them to be, sometimes envision them to be.
They're affected and sometimes contaminated by these kinds of motives.
Now, It doesn't mean that the judge will go that way.
The judge could go the other way.
He could even say, hey listen, I am in Fulton County.
This is a county with a substantial portion of left-wingers and blacks.
And so Fannie Willis is going to have a sympathetic hearing in this district.
I'm going to lose anyway.
So I might as well do the right thing.
And I might as well disqualify Fannie Willis if I think that that's the right thing to do.
Let me just do it. I will protect my reputation, my integrity.
History will look kindly on me.
And who cares if I win the election or don't win the election?
Even if I were not to disqualify Fannie, I might lose the election anyway to this other guy.
Now... When all this is going on, Ashley Merchant, who is the lawyer for Mike Roman, has appeared before the Georgia Ethics Commission to testify in an investigation into Fannie Willis.
And that includes some pretty interesting observations, and I wanted to mention a few.
Number one, She says, Fannie Willis went to the Georgia legislature and asked for $5 million to prosecute sexual assault and homicides, and then used that money to investigate the 2020 election.
So this was Fannie Willis' ruse.
Asked for money for one thing, but she really wanted to do something else, something that she didn't think the Georgia legislature would give her money to do.
So she... Essentially trumped up the case based on funds that she, in vagal, she kind of got out of the Georgia legislature on false pretenses.
Number two, Fannie Willis has testified pretty clearly that she did not go to the White House, that she did not meet either with the White House or with Kamala Harris and And, says Ashley Merchant, there's now incontrovertible evidence that she did go to the White House and that she did meet with Kamala Harris.
Why? Because it's right there on the White House logs.
So, this is a further complication because, again, lying to the court, lying to the judge, testifying falsely under oath, these don't go very well if you are a lawyer.
They don't go very well if you are the district attorney.
And, and here's a point that Jonathan Turley makes, there are a number of defendants in the Georgia case, the Trump case, who are charged with what?
Well, they're charged with filing false statements.
They're charged with making statements that aren't true.
They're also charged with influencing witnesses.
And And now we have a new lawyer.
This is a lawyer formerly with the district attorney's office coming forward.
And this person says that Fannie Willis, that they heard Fannie Willis on the phone talking to this guy Bradley.
This is Nathan Wade's buddy Bradley.
And saying, you don't have to tell him anything.
You don't have to testify.
You don't have to give him the scoop.
So Fannie Willis here is apparently coaching a potential witness.
About what to say and what not to say.
Now, at that time exactly, Bradley hadn't been called as a witness, but of course Fannie Willis knew he could be.
So, here you have a problem.
I'm going to read the actual quote.
They are coming after us.
You don't need to talk to them about anything about us.
This according to Cindy Lee Yeager, who's a co-chief deputy district attorney for Cobb County, who says that Fannie Willis made this statement in her presence, or at least in her hearing.
So, the irony, according to Jonathan Turley, is that Fannie Willis is now vulnerable or exposed for doing exactly what she's accusing the Trump defendants.
Her RICO case against a lot of these defendants is not that they directly conspired to overthrow any election, not at all.
In some cases, this guy, he made a false statement.
That guy, he was talking to another guy and he was coaching him about how to testify.
So, the exact conduct that Fannie Willis is hauling these defendants and criminally charging them, she has been doing.
That's the point. And so, the judge is going to have to deal with this.
Now, it seems that where Judge McAfee is about all this is...
He doesn't really want to hear anymore because all this new stuff is coming out.
And the judges basically said, look, I might, if I need to, open the door again to more testimony, more witnesses.
But he says, I think I've already got enough now to make a decision.
And to me, that's not good news for Fannie Willis because when he says, I've heard enough, to me, it suggests that the judge is saying, I've got enough incriminating evidence to give this woman the boot.
We just cannot continue with this case with this kind of baggage.
Let's refresh our memory about what the baggage is.
Financial impropriety, lying to the court, falsely coaching other potential witnesses.
I mean, you just had to look at Bradley up there testifying to see that this guy was trying to do everything he could without explicitly lying to cover up for Fannie Willis and Nathan Wade.
He was not a willing witness.
He was trying to pretend like, did I really say that?
He looks at the paper that shows that he did send the...
Dang! I mean, talk about giveaways for anybody who's observing.
And this is the job of a judge and also of a jury, is to not only observe what people say, but to observe their mannerisms, how they say it.
Obviously, if someone is very shifty, if they constantly keep moving their weight from one foot to the other, sweating profusely, Hemming and hawing, pretending that they can't remember obvious things.
And all of this is an indication that that person is not being entirely forthright.
So we're going to be getting a decision.
I would predict that we'll have one by next week.
And see where the judge comes out of this.
And that's going to really give us a bigger picture on Trump.
Whether he's going to have to deal with this Georgia case or whether this one, like so many of the other cases, seem to be one by one tumbling to the wayside.
Some financial experts thought we were in the clear.
They were anticipating around six rate cuts by the Fed this year.
And then the inflation data came out higher than expected.
Friends, this isn't going away.
It can't. The U.S. is $34 trillion in the hole, and yet we keep printing money, which pushes the prices you pay every day even higher.
So you can either bury your head in the sand about this or you can do something about it.
What to do? Diversify a portion of your savings into gold with Birch Gold Group.
Gold is your hedge against inflation and Birch Gold makes it easy to own.
They'll help you convert an existing IRA or 401k into a tax-sheltered IRA in gold.
And you don't pay a penny out of pocket.
Gold is part of our savings strategy.
Debbie and I buy gold from Birch Gold.
You can too.
Text Dinesh to 989898.
Get your free information kit on gold.
Then talk to a precious metals specialist on how to protect your savings from persistent inflation with gold.
Text Dinesh to 989898.
No time to waste.
Do it now.
Mike and the MyPillow gang continue to be cancelled by big box stores and attacked by the media.
They really appreciate all of your excellent support during these times and they want to thank you by giving you the best specials on all their products.
So to get these specials, go to MyPillow.com or you can call 800-876-0227.
Use promo code Dinesh.
You'll get the famous Giza Dream Sheets, Queen Size $59.98, King Size $69.98 and You can also get 60% off the original MySlipper, so act now.
Call 800-876-0227 or go to MyPillow.com.
Don't forget to use the promo code DINESH. Debbie and I are here for our Friday roundup, and we haven't had a chance to talk on the podcast about...
The Super Tuesday results, and then after that, Nikki Haley dropping out.
Were you surprised that she dropped out at all?
Because, I mean, if her rationale was just to hang in there, it doesn't matter how many states she loses, because if something happens to Trump...
Who's left? That was kind of my rationale for her remaining in the race no matter how poorly she did.
But it could be I'm thinking that maybe her donors just decided to pull the rug because nobody likes to put money, even if you're wealthy, into a black hole.
What's your thinking about Nikki Haley finally calling it quits?
Well, I kind of think Nikki Haley was thinking, I'm going to hang on because I want people to remember me and remember my tenacity because there is always a next time, right?
2028. And if she does put her hat in the ring in 28, people will remember that.
And so she'll kind of have a little bit of a step up, you know, kind of thing.
I mean, I suppose what you're saying is that she said, I can outlast these other guys because DeSantis got out.
I mean, he got out right after the Iowa caucus.
He didn't even go to New Hampshire.
And then Vivek got out early.
So it's almost as if... Nikki Haley has a little bit of this...
I don't know what to call it, but she talks about things like, you know, yeah, don't come near me because I'm wearing high heels and I can use those as a weapon.
In other words, she has a little bit of this tough guy kind of pose, and it may be that that was convincing her to stay in longer than anybody else.
Yeah, I think so. And I think she felt like she was bullied by Vivek and by the others.
Mostly Vivek.
Vivek was relentless.
In fact, I don't know if you saw this, but I noticed that Vivek was apparently getting threats from Nikki Haley's brother.
Oh no. Who kept saying things like, yeah, meet me on the sidewalk and stuff like that.
I want to have it out with you.
Two Indians. Yeah, two Indians are basically going to...
Head to head. Yeah, I mean, normally two Indians, if you think like, let's settle this over a game of chess.
Yeah, not so much.
But no, no. But apparently Nikki Haley's brother was a little unhinged.
They probably took it very personally.
Yeah. Yeah. So anyway, I do think Nikki Haley wanted to be the last man standing or woman standing because I think she wants to be remembered for the next cycle.
She knows she has zero chance of having Trump ask her to be on anything.
I mean, he's not going to have her be in the cabinet, VP, nothing.
So she knows she has to wait it out until 28th.
And she wanted to kind of leave a little bit of a memorable thing for the voters.
I mean, the question to me is whether...
The problem, I think, for Nikki Haley, and it's not personal to her.
It's not about Nikki Haley at all.
It is whether or not there is that ideological lane is still...
Open to command a majority of the Republican Party in the future.
Because I think what's happened is, you know, I see on CNN, you know, it's Trump's Republican Party.
You know, Trump is... But it's not just also about Trump.
The Trumpian kind of MAGA spirit dominates the party.
It does dominate. You and I saw it on the ground.
Yeah, it does. But I was going to just say that.
When we were when we were campaigning for Brandon, you know on the ground the on Election Day We did run into some people that were very much on the on the Nikki Haley side of the aisle You know, they were they were very docile and they they don't like the fighting They don't they don't want to act like them, you know There is that faction and we have to remember that that there is that faction of Republicans
that are very docile and they're they're very principled and they're not going to resort to name-calling or Attacks or anything else? No, they think it's a point of moral superiority not to write and they take a certain self-pride And wasn't that Nikki Haley's mantra?
It is her mantra. Her mantra is also, I think, what she thinks to be a Reaganite inheritance, which is that when there are trouble spots around the world, the United States should be the kind of guardian of world peace.
Now, I'm not actually sure this was Reagan's view.
And I say this because what I think Nikki Haley takes to be Reagan's view is...
Is Reaganism as modified by the Bushes?
Yeah, exactly. I was going to say just that.
Yeah. It's the warmonger in her that feels like, you know what, we have to have presence everywhere, whether they want us there or not.
Again, a lot of those tactics backfired on us.
They did. You know, the changing of the hearts and minds.
Did we change any hearts and minds in the Middle East?
Or are they back to the same barbaric tactics that they always had and always will have?
Yeah. Yeah, and also I think when people think back to Reagan, they forget that they always look at, oh, Reagan supported the Muslims who were fighting the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
True. But there were a lot of times when Reagan decided to stay out.
And there were times when there were things going on, even something as direct as the Beirut attacks of 1982, which were really bad, and a direct attack on a U.S. base.
Mm-hmm. If you think about Reagan's response, it was quite muted.
The Achille laurel. The Achille laurel, yeah.
Reagan's response was discretionary, and I think Reagan always asked himself the question, how is this connected to America's vital interests?
And I think that's the question we have to ask, say, about Ukraine.
Mm-hmm. How is this war in Ukraine, to which we've already committed a lot, right?
It's a separate question whether we should have committed at all, but we have already committed a lot.
How much more, to what degree, should we deplete NATO's arsenal in fighting a proxy war over the Russian border, which is...
Very remote from us.
Yeah, it is. But you also have to remember that the people around the world, the dictators around the world, do not respect us.
And I've talked about this before, especially when we have a buffoon in the White House.
In fact, Italian television has shows, kind of like Saturday Night Live, where they make fun of Biden.
Wow. Biden falling over himself and crashing.
They make fun of Biden everywhere.
And these dictators know that Biden's not really running the ship.
In fact, we don't really know who is.
You had a guest on yesterday.
You're making an interesting point here, which is that even though there was less actual war under Trump, there was less firing.
The United States wasn't deploying weapons and materiel.
We weren't sending over huge shipments to Ukraine.
Even so, the world doesn't think we're tough.
No, but the world thought we were tough when Trump was in charge.
And that's why it was mostly peaceful.
Because they didn't want to do anything.
And this is why they were so excited when he lost.
Because they're like, yay!
Now's our chance. Now's our chance to do what we wanted to do since Obama.
And you remember with Obama, we had a lot of chaos.
I think people forget the chaos that we had under Obama.
We had the Arab Spring.
We had poor Laura Logan being raped by all those men.
That all happened under Obama.
People forgot that, I think.
This is why peace through strength is the best weapon that we have, really, but when they know we're strong.
When Trump was talking on Super Tuesday, he put out some counterfactuals.
He said something like, if I was in charge, the Hamas attacks would not have occurred.
You know, if I was in charge, he says, Putin would not have invaded Ukraine.
And you have to evaluate these things one by one, but I found myself kind of nodding and going, yeah, that's probably true.
Yeah, that's probably true.
We can't say with certainty because we're talking about a hypothetical.
But nevertheless, we know from Trump's ears that those kinds of things didn't happen.
They could have happened then. They happened under Biden.
And Trump was saying there's a reason they happened under Biden.
And Yogi is saying that's the reason that Biden is...
Absolutely. And Iran has been waiting to seize this moment.
They have been waiting for us to just kind of go, oh, yeah, well, here's another billion dollars or here's another whatever, you know.
We supply them with money.
And it's not, you know, when they say, oh, but it's for aid.
How do we control that?
We can't. But they know we are really, really weak right now.
And I am really afraid that not only is Iran going to do something to Israel, but But they're going to do something to us.
Because as you know, they have been lining their little alliances everywhere in South America and the Caribbean really close to us.
Really, really close.
About a thousand miles away.
And all they need is a short-range missile and we're done.
We are. And so I think that they're waiting for a buffoon like Biden to keep going or some other buffoon like Biden.
How are you feeling these days?
I feel great and one of the reasons I believe I feel so good is because I take this.
It's Balance of Nature, fruits and veggies in a capsule.
So easy to take. They have an amazing story of how this product was developed by Dr.
Douglas Howard. It's right there on their website, balanceofnature.com.
Balance of Nature receives over a thousand success stories every single month.
They have hundreds of thousands of customers who have purchased billions of capsules of their fruits and veggies over the past 20 years.
The products are gluten-free.
They're non-GMO. They contain no added sugars or synthetics.
So I think if you're looking for something to make you feel better naturally, you should definitely give Balance of Nature a try.
In fact, When you order online or call direct, you got to use promo code AMERICA. You'll get the special offer, 35% off, plus $10 off any additional sets, plus free shipping and a money-back guarantee.
Here's the number to call, 800-246-8751.
The number again, 800-246-8751.
Or you can go to balanceofnature.com.
When you use discount code AMERICA, you'll get the special offer, 35% off, plus $10 off any additional sets, plus free shipping and a money-back guarantee.
Guys, if you'd like to support my work, I'd like to invite you to 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.
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.
2000 Mules is up there and also the new film Police State.
If you're an annual subscriber, you can stream and watch these films for free.
It's just included with your subscription.
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.
Debbie and I were joking and joking with Brian here in the studio that we planned to talk about Super Tuesday and about Trump and the possibilities for November.
We got steered into talking about foreign policy.
Let me bring this back to Super Tuesday for a minute because not only did Brandon Gill win big, but somebody who won even bigger than Brandon was Mayra Flores.
Now, Mayra Flores, of course, is a former congresswoman, but she is now in a redistricted, heavily Democratic district.
Now, she ran against this guy, Vicente Flores, the last time.
She did pretty well and came within striking distance.
And we're hoping, of course, you and I are, and we want to help her in any way we can to defeat this guy.
Because not only will that be important in itself, but it's symbolic of a shift toward the GOP among Hispanics.
And but you are making the point to me that Mayra has it easy in the primary, but unlike Brandon, who will have it easy in the general, Mayra won't.
She's going to have a fight in her hands in the general.
And really simply because we were talking about changing hearts and minds in the last segment, we actually have to change hearts and minds in the Rio Grande Valley.
I grew up there, as you know.
And I never quite understood why people were so just fixated on the Democratic Party and why they kept voting that way, even though it was against their own interests.
Now, the Democrats have become a little bit more vocal about the social issues, which really they didn't talk about much back when I was growing up in the Valley.
Mostly it was financial.
Mostly it was economic, socioeconomic issues.
Hey, you know, the Republican Party is for the rich.
The Democratic Party is for the poor.
So therefore, because we're poor, we have to vote for the Democratic Party, right?
So I thought to myself, well, no.
When I heard Reagan talk in the Valley in 1980, I was like, No, everything that Reagan has said about the Latinos being family first, God first, country first, all those things resonated with me.
And I couldn't really understand why it didn't resonate with most Hispanics down there.
I was like, really, guys?
You really want to be taken care of?
You really want to be like the recipients of like, in Spanish, it's limosna, you know, like handouts?
No, no. Well, I mean, let me suggest an explanation.
You grew up in the first 10 years of your life in Venezuela, and you grew up in a middle to upper middle class family, and you had a lot of, not only a lot of amenities, but you had a lot of self-confidence.
And you had this idea that if I have opportunity, I can succeed.
Right. I guess what I'm suggesting is when you were transplanted at the age of 10 into the Rio Grande Valley, you have people who have a more defeated mentality, that they think of themselves as unable to make it on their own, reliant on the government.
You would describe, for example, how people would line up for free cheese and the government would cut these big blocks of cheese and give them to you.
And you probably could have used the cheese, but you were like offended at the idea that you should stand in line and get free cheese, but it didn't seem to bother the rest of the gang.
That's my point. Yeah, no, my grandparents loved the free cheese.
They did. And it was pretty good, actually, but I didn't want to go with them to stand in line.
That was... Right, you like the cheese, but you...
Exactly. Yeah, but the thing about it is that my grandparents also came from the era of...
The depression right so they had that you know in in them So the instilled in them and then they were Hispanic so they had the whole oh, you know We might like my grandmother was brilliant. She was a she she was actually Valedictorian of her high school class down in Donna, Texas, which is in the Rio Grande Valley but she was given salutatorian and my everyone always speculated it was because she was Hispanic and
And even though my grandmother really should have gotten the other.
So my grandmother always had that kind of chip on her shoulder.
Like, I didn't really get what I should have gotten on my own merit because of who I am.
So, you know, again, it's that mentality.
But I went in there, waltzing in there, and I was like, no, I'm not going to succumb to this mentality.
I just, I refused.
And so, yes, that was then.
That was the early 80s.
And And now it's different.
But I do believe that the key for Myra to win this election in the Rio Grande Valley is to educate people that my classmates, there are a lot of classmates of mine that are fans of yours.
So I know that they're extremely well versed in the right-left issue, but there are a lot that aren't.
And so... Yeah, I want to highlight something that we're talking about in a sort of subtext.
A lot of the Republicans who run in places like the Rio Grande Valley, they feel that it's important not to say, I'm a Republican, or to put that front and center.
Why? Because people are, they've been habitually Democrats for generations.
So they essentially say it's not about the parties. It's about the individual and it's about the fact that I represent upward mobility and God and family and country and an opportunity and So they present a message almost like it's a personal message that they're giving people I think what you're saying is look We don't just want Meyer Flores to win we do
But we want the pathway to be cleared for Hispanics to understand the key difference between the parties, between the parties and what they stand for.
And so people have to understand that the Republican Party has always been the party of equal rights and equal opportunity, and the Democratic Party has never been that and is not that now.
And it's not that now. And that if you're a poor guy who's not looking to be carried up on a ladder, but someone who's willing to climb the ladder, someone who says, give me opportunity and I will take advantage of it, the Republican Party is your natural home.
And you're saying that education has not occurred.
It has not occurred. And I love the analogy that you made several years ago, the ladder and the rope.
Because it is something that everyone in the Rio Grande Valley should learn, right?
And so, you know, the ladder meaning I'm going to climb that.
I have a ladder that I can climb and I'm going to do it on my own.
And if you know what, if it falls, I'm going to get right back on the ladder and I'm going to go again.
Whereas, if you have somebody give you a rope, which is the Democratic Party, right?
The ladder is the Republican Party.
The rope is a Democrat. We'll let down a rope.
We're going to let down a rope.
They can let go of that rope anytime they want.
And it's not up to you.
It's up to them.
Remember, what the government giveth, the government can taketh away.
Exactly. So I think that that is something that's very important to teach the people in the valley, as well as bringing in the social issues.
Because as everyone knows, all of these agendas that are being shoved down little kids' throats, like, you know, oh, you...
You think you're a little girl?
Well, let me tell you. I think you're really a little boy inside.
Those types of things that are done because of the Democrats, that is not something that somebody in the Rio Grande Valley is okay with.
I know it for a fact.
I've talked to ladies that take care of my mom and aunts and whatnot.
They're not okay with it.
They're not. But the media is hiding from them the fact that this is a central part of the Democratic Party's social agenda.
Absolutely. Yeah. Now, you read an article, let's pivot to this because of time, about Javier Millet.
And a very interesting question is, could it be that the success of guys like Millet over there might have an impact on Latinos and Hispanics Yeah.
Yeah. Meaning, hello everyone. So obviously if you speak Spanish, you know exactly what he's saying.
But then he goes, what a beautiful day to make the left tremble.
And I thought that was so funny.
I just, you know, I love that little bit of like knife twisting that he loves to do.
Yeah. He does. And he's very Trumpian in that regard.
Oh, yes. Oh, absolutely. But anyway, and then this article goes on to say, the Republican Party is aligning with some Latin American populace as a way of injecting star power and the political landscape of immigrants.
So, it's kind of interesting.
That's an interesting point because very often the Democrats look for role models and their idea of a role model, I mean, it sounds comical to say, would be like Sheila Jackson Lee or would be someone like someone who's a community organizer in your own district.
So, left-wing governmental role models.
Or actors in Hollywood. Right. Or actors in Hollywood.
Exactly. Here's Jennifer Lopez.
So that's right.
And I think what the article is suggesting is that Malay has become a kind of a rock star.
Not just an Argentine rock star, but an international rock star.
So he had quite a buzz at CPAC. There's a lot of electricity in the room.
And what that suggests is that conservatives are saying, not only we like Malay, But we wonder if the example of Malay is catching the eye of the people who watch, you know, Telemundo and Univision and will they go, hey, here's a guy who's like us, speaks Spanish.
Not to mention, Malay reminds me a lot of Donald Trump.
Therefore, I'm going to vote for Donald Trump because they're very much alike.
And Millay is such an explicit Trumpster.
In fact, apparently the Biden administration, I think I mentioned this to you the last time, was they were trying to talk him out of allying with Trump in any way, suggesting that the U.S. government might give all kinds of favors to Argentina if he would stay away from Trump and he...
Clearly, flatly refused.
Well, I told you last time, he was so giddy when he saw Trump.
It was the cutest thing ever.
He was just like he had seen his idol.
It was adorable.
Well, if he can help push the Hispanic vote in our way, that's not the main thing that he's trying to do, but it will just be an added and very welcome benefit.
In Abraham Lincoln's Lyceum speech, he talks about the specter, the possibility of the rise of a certain type of superior man that is not part of the run of the mill.
And he says, this kind of person is not going to be satisfied with just continuing in the founder's established pathway.
He says...
The question then is, can that gratification be found in supporting and maintaining an edifice that has been erected by others?
Most certainly it cannot.
Many great and good men sufficiently qualified for any task they undertake may ever be found whose ambition would aspire to nothing beyond a seat in Congress, a gubernatorial or presidential chair, but such belong not to the family of the lion or tribe of the eagle.
He's a certain type of man and it's not going to be enough just to be inside of a system the founders created, not even the president.
Here's what Lincoln is talking about.
What? Think you these places would satisfy an Alexander, a Caesar, or a Napoleon?
Never. Towering genius disdains a beaten path.
It thirsts and burns for distinction, and if possible, it will have it, whether at the expense of emancipating slaves or enslaving freemen.
So, here is Lincoln.
This is a very remarkable section of Lincoln's speech because here is Lincoln denying that all men are created equal.
Here is Lincoln, the great apostle of the Declaration of Independence, the great fan of Thomas Jefferson, the person whose whole career is based upon the notion that governments are created of, by, and for the people.
Kind of denying this notion of democratic equality.
Here is Lincoln raising the possibility of superior beings.
Supermen, let's call them.
Or, to use the philosopher Nietzsche's term, the Übermensch or the Overman.
The man who stands above all the rest.
The man who dwarfs everybody else.
And this appears to be Lincoln denying...
In a very relevant context, the whole meaning of the Declaration of Independence.
So what is the meaning of the Declaration of Independence?
Let's think about that for a minute.
What is the actual meaning of all men are created equal?
Does it mean that all men are equal in height?
No. In weight?
No. In intelligence?
No. In moral character?
No. In their practice of the vices and the virtues?
No. In personality?
No. So, what possibly can be meant by the notion that all men are created equal?
Created equal in what respect?
Well, they're created equal, first of all, in the eyes of their Creator.
So, you could say that each person has, in God's eyes, an equal moral worth.
But so what? That's between you and God and me and God, and what does this have to do with how we organize a political community?
So, the Declaration of Independence is based upon a political translation of this theological idea.
And the political translation goes a bit like this.
All men are equal people.
In being men.
In other words, in being human beings.
In that sense, in this respect, in this moral sense, no human being is superior or inferior intrinsically to any other.
They may be superior or inferior in some capacity or the other, but sort of overall, taken as their, in terms of their human value, one person is not better than another.
As I mentioned yesterday, this is not true in the animal kingdom.
In the animal kingdom, some animals are better than others.
They're stronger than others.
They rule the jungle, if you will, by the law of the jungle, which is, of course, the law of force.
But the idea of a human community is different.
That human beings are equal in the sense that a human being cannot govern another human being in the same way that, say, a human being governs a dog or a human being governs a horse.
A horse is, in fact, by nature sort of outfitted, you may say, to be ridden by humans.
A There's a natural difference between a human being and a dog, which makes the human being, with its capacity of reason and so on, the natural ruler of the dog.
And that's not a violation of nature.
But the basic meaning of the Declaration of Independence is not, by the way, that no human being should ever rule over another.
But that no human being should rule over another without consent.
This is the key sort of second part of the declaration that you are, you can have rule of one human being over another or one human being over many others as long as they give their consent, as long as they decide through a political process, yes, we are delegating or deputizing to you the right to rule over us.
But Lincoln with his examples of Caesar and Napoleon is implying that there are these monarchical, these emperors, these rulers of men...
Who don't care about this sort of democratic and constitutional pish-posh, this sort of rubbish.
They will just sweep it to the side and take over the country, take over the society, because, in their view, they have a natural right to rule on the basis of their superiority.
Now, if we turn for a moment to Shakespeare's Julius Caesar, we begin to see what's going on here and what Lincoln is talking about.
I want to draw your attention to a scene that Jaffa discusses.
And the scene is actually being described to Cassius by a fellow named Casca.
And Casca tells Cassius that he's talking about Mark Anthony, and Mark Anthony says, You all did see that on the looper call I thrice presented him, him as Caesar, a kingly crown, which he did thrice refuse.
Was this ambition?
Now, the implied answer to this question is no, because Mark Anthony is saying, I gave Caesar the crown.
And he said, nah, I don't want it.
Nah, I don't want it. He put it aside.
And so the crowd is impressed.
They go, wow, this Caesar is amazing.
He's being offered the chance to be an emperor, and he is declining it.
But the interesting meaning, if you think it through, is Cassius, who's hearing about this, is not fooled for a second.
He knows exactly why Caesar refused the crown.
Caesar refused the crown not because Caesar lacks ambition.
But because Caesar wants to conceal his ambition.
Caesar wants to be emperor, but he realizes that because Rome has been a republic for so long, if he says I want to be an emperor, the people may rise up and execute him.
So what Caesar has to do is achieve the powers of being an emperor without the title of And that's the significance of, I don't want the crown.
It's almost like a theatrical performance by Caesar to deny his true intentions.
And while the crowd in Shakespeare, the crowd in Shakespeare by and large is almost always the dummies.
Because whenever you watch a Shakespeare play and the crowd goes, yeah, yeah, you can be convinced you're listening to something extremely stupid.
For Caesar, the crowd never embodies wisdom.
It's always a bunch of idiots.
Now, the aristocrats, by and large, are not fooled.
They're the ones who are able to look at the crowd, and in fact, this is Cassius' standard position, that the crowd is yelling and screaming.
Those idiots have no idea what they're screaming about.
But the true meaning of what is going on is that Caesar really wants to be an emperor.
And for this reason, Cassius organizes the plot, To kill Caesar.
Why? Because Cassius sort of has the wisdom of a serpent, and he realizes that you've got to get rid of Caesar.
Now, Cassius' plot ultimately fails.
But it actually fails only because Cassius' own advice is not taken by Cassius' buddy and partner, the guy named Brutus.
Brutus is a good man, and Cassius, who's extremely low and cunning, says, let's not just, we've killed Caesar.
Now we got to go kill Marc Anthony.
Why? Because Marc Anthony is Caesar's protege.
He's going to be motivated by revenge.
Let's go kill him also.
And Brutus is like, no, that's going to be too much.
We've already done the job with Caesar and that's enough.
And this is a massive mistake because what happens is Marc Anthony now organizes a military resistance and ultimately the armies of Marc Anthony.
And Augustus defeat the armies of Cassius and Brutus, and the effort to overthrow Caesar comes to an end, and a new Caesar, in this case Augustus, is then instituted.
So, when we come back on Monday, we're going to pick up the text itself.
The point of this little excursion on Shakespeare is to show that That the superior man doesn't always appear as a superior man.
He doesn't say, I don't care about democracy.
I'm happy to overthrow democracy.
He actually poses as a champion of democracy.
I'm going to help secure democracy.
I stand for true democracy.
No, don't give me a crown.
I don't really want one.
So, Lincoln is raising the danger of this kind of a person emerging in the United States.
And for a lot of critics, at Lincoln's time and even subsequently, they would say that such a person is none other than Abraham Lincoln himself.
Subscribe to the Dinesh D'Souza Podcast on Apple, Google, and Spotify.
▲
Export Selection