All Episodes
Previous Next
May 8, 2024 - Dinesh D'Souza
48:54
STORMY WEATHER Dinesh D’Souza Podcast Ep828
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Coming up, I'll review some important developments in the classified documents case and also the case in New York.
Stormy is on the stand.
And I'll reveal how campus protests are not spontaneous events.
They're well-coordinated schemes with specific tactics designed to achieve favorable press coverage and also specific policy objectives.
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.
America needs this voice.
The times are crazy.
In a time of confusion, division, and lies, we need a brave voice of reason, understanding, and truth.
This is the Dinesh D'Souza Podcast.
I want to talk about some interesting developments in two of the Trump cases.
I'll start with the classified documents case in Florida.
And here it looks like that case is, I won't say out the window, but nearly out the window.
And I say this because of an important revelation that has come out that is very damaging to the prosecutor, to the special counsel, Jack Smith.
And this is not just my opinion of it.
The judge knows it. Jack Smith knows it.
Everybody knows it. And the judge has decided that given what has come out, We're good to go.
is going to be indefinitely kicked forward and most likely kicked forward beyond the 2024 election.
So you can almost take that one just like you can take the Judge Ngaran case, which is now under appeal and sort of nothing's going to happen now for two years.
You can safely say this case is pretty much dead in the water in terms of being adjudicated before the 2024 election.
Now, The new revelation is that you might remember that kind of very eye-catching picture that was put out by the US government, by the Biden administration, of all these classified documents arrayed on the floor with colored paper markings of red and blue and green, With classified, top secret, written all over those documents, and it was like, wow, you know, this all seems very damning, very incriminating.
Well, as it turns out, that photo was completely staged.
Those sheets that you saw, the green, the red, the yellow, with all the big signs, top secret, classified, That was all fabricated.
The FBI actually brought those sheets with them, and they put them on top of the documents to make it look like, oh, these were all marked that way.
They weren't marked that way.
And even worse, not only was this a kind of, you could call it a photo op for the gullible public to consume, and this is really why we should realize that we need to be on our guard.
Many times we see evidence, we go, oh, that looks really bad.
And we're going to talk about Stormy Daniels and all the things she said, oh, that sounds really bad.
No, it doesn't sound really bad.
First of all, we don't even know if any of this is true.
I frankly find the whole thing highly entertaining.
I'll get to that in a moment.
But coming back to these classified documents, not only were the cover sheets faked, but the documents weren't even preserved by the government in their proper order.
So this is very troubling for the Trump defense because the Trump defense lawyers told the judge, Your Honor, we're going to try to show that we got these documents.
There was an order of those documents that we preserved.
We We never moved the documents.
Nobody consulted the documents or used them in any way.
They were carefully protected.
They were overseen, of course, by locks and by the Secret Service.
So we were responsible in our custody of these documents.
And now these guys, the U.S. government, which told us the opposite, has been changing the order of the documents, moving them around.
And so, in other words, the order has been irretrievably disturbed.
So, the judge is like, this is a problemo.
And so, there are going to be a bunch of hearings, and these hearings are, I mean, just look at it.
One hearing is on the alteration and the manipulation of the documents.
A second hearing is on selective and vindictive prosecution.
The fact that Trump says, and who can deny this, hey, I had classified documents.
So did Biden.
So did other presidents.
Biden took documents when he was not even president and had no declassification authority.
None of these people have even been classified.
Have even been seriously investigated, let alone prosecuted.
And in the one case where there was an investigation by Robert Herr, he goes, listen, Biden actually is guilty, but I can't prosecute him because he's too much of a doddering idiot for me to put on the stand.
The jury will be sympathetic because he'll be like, I don't really know.
I don't know where I am. I don't know what my middle name is.
How can I be held responsible for anything?
I mean, just think about the insanity of this.
And Trump is going, so what?
I'm being prosecuted for being of sound mind?
I'm being prosecuted for being smart compared to the guy who's supposedly running the country.
So this is, I think, all extremely good stuff and good news for us.
Now let me turn to the Stormy Daniels case, where not only is there more than one Stormy Daniels statement supposedly made and signed by her where she says, you know, I didn't have an affair with Trump.
No, nothing really happened.
But now she says the opposite and she gives all these lurid details.
The event occurred in 2006.
So when something like that happens, you know, you have to be a little suspicious.
You're suspicious when someone says, I don't remember anything at all.
And this was basically the, what was it, the Christine Blasey Ford...
She couldn't remember anything.
I don't remember where. I don't remember when.
I don't remember... Okay, that's one extreme.
But the other extreme that one should also be suspicious of is when somebody has an absolutely precise, riveting memory.
Oh yes, I remember the curtains were green.
I remember the tile was black and white.
Yeah, I remember the chandelier.
Yes, I remember Trump.
Yeah, he was wearing some green pajamas.
Now, I'm not giving you Stormy's actual details, but pretty close.
This is what Stormy did.
She gave a kind of, you could almost say, novelistic account of what actually happened, complete with excruciating detail.
You know, Trump slaps her on the back of her butt with a magazine.
I mean, just think about that. Is that the kind of thing you'd remember from 2006?
Now, while in the meantime, you're putting out letters that nothing ever happened.
So you've got somebody, first of all, a porn star.
Second of all, somebody who's shaking down Trump.
She even admits things like, yeah, once I realized he was running for president, like the opportunities abounded.
Like now I've got a bigger price that I think I can extract because he's got more to lose.
So, I mean, think about it.
If anybody should be prosecuted here, it's Stormy.
Why? Because she's essentially trying to extort money from a public figure to save that public figure embarrassment.
But by the same token, when you realize that that's a shakedown, you also have to realize that, yeah, the public figure is going to want to avoid embarrassment, but there are many reasons to avoid embarrassment.
So let me give you a few of those reasons.
One of them, the most obvious one, is not the one that's being alleged.
The government is saying basically that Trump has only one reason to avoid embarrassment.
Namely, he wants to avoid negative stories affecting the election.
Well, but it stands to reason that if you're being shaken down on a matter like this, whatever the truth of the matter, the number one reason to avoid embarrassment is so your own wife and your own family aren't humiliated.
I mean, that would be the first reason that one would think of, not, oh, guess what?
Because Trump is actually a genius at deflecting these negative stories.
Frankly, most people who support Trump don't care about this stuff.
Either they don't believe it, or they don't think it's a big deal, or they think, okay, gee, this happened between consenting adults, or they think that, gee, this was a long time ago.
Trump is different now.
He doesn't do that kind of stuff.
This was a playboy phase that Trump went through.
In any case, the idea that we know Trump's motive, and they have to prove a motive.
They have to prove that Trump's intention in doing this payoff was somehow, and get this, To rig the 2016 election.
To prevent damaging stories from coming out.
And frankly, every candidate tries to do that.
But to prevent damaging stories from coming out and in the process supposedly breaking federal campaign election laws, election laws for which Trump has in fact never been charged.
So this is the lunacy Of this case.
I've been reading Jonathan Turley's columns on it, and you can tell that he can't even believe that he has to write about this because there's something inherently laughable about the whole thing.
And yet, when you go to CNN, you go to MSN, these people are all with straight faces acting as if this is all on the up and up.
I even saw the historian Doug Brinkley, whom I've known over the years, a really good guy, Make the ludicrous statement, and I'm now quoting him.
He goes, this has nothing to do with Trump running for re-election.
Wow. He doesn't think this case or all the cases against Trump are motivated by a desire to keep Trump off the ballot or to make sure that Trump is jailed or to make sure that he can't mount an effective candidacy.
So some of the people that we are dealing with seem to be just living in another world.
In Doug Brinkley's case, and as I mentioned, this is a guy I know, I don't think it's malice.
I just think he is living in a professorial bubble and because of his, yes, Trump derangement syndrome, this is a topic on which an otherwise intelligent man just can't see straight.
Can your savings weather an economic storm?
Think about what you've put away for the future.
Well inflation can render cash worthless.
Real estate can crash like it did in 2008.
Companies built on a mountain of debt can fall like a house of cards.
There are very few physical assets you can invest in that can stand the test of time.
Gold has withstood as a valued form of money for millennia.
It's why people are flocking to it now and why Birch Gold, a company I buy my gold from, is busier than ever.
Through a little known tax loophole, Birch Gold lets you convert a retirement account into a tax-sheltered IRA in physical gold and the best part, it doesn't cost you a penny out of pocket.
Want to learn more?
Text Dinesh to 989898, claim your free information kit on gold.
Let me ask you this again.
Can your IRA or 401k weather an economic storm?
Well if not, call the people Debbie and I trust, Birch Gold.
Text Dinesh to 989898 and secure your savings today.
Do you remember as a kid how your parents and grandparents made you eat all the vegetables I certainly do. Or when they coaxed you to eat fruit instead of sweets?
Well, that's because they knew what was good for you.
And it's truer today than ever before.
You need to eat your fruits and veggies.
And there's no substitute for a healthy diet, but there is this.
Balance of Nature. Fruits and veggies in a capsule.
So easy to take. The products are gluten-free.
They're non-GMO. They contain no added sugars or synthetics.
So if you're looking for something to make you feel better naturally, you should definitely try Balance of Nature today.
Eat your fruits and veggies every single day with Balance of Nature.
I started taking Balance of Nature the day I decided I was ready to feel better.
So are you ready to feel better?
Whether you order online or call direct, you got to use promo code AMERICA. You'll get the special offer, 35% off.
So call them, 800-246-8751.
Again, it's 800-246-8751.
Or you can go to balanceofnature.com.
When you use discount code AMERICA, you'll get the special offer, 35% off.
I came across an excellent primer.
A thread, really, of comments about these organized, or I should say highly organized, protests on the college campus.
Some of them are even off campus, but the point is that these protests are not only coordinated, they are also financed, they are well thought out, They have a goal or an end.
And they also have a strategy to achieve the end.
And the strategy itself is very ingenious in that it anticipates and prepares for the reaction on the part of the college authorities and the college administration.
Now... In going through this thread, you have to sort of admire the way in which the left pulls this stuff off.
It's not haphazard. Let's just contrast this, what I'm about to say, with January 6th, which was very haphazard.
People just go. They go to the Capitol.
Some people go in. It's like, oh, the door is open, and they walk in.
So that was...
Look, I've been defending the January 6th prisoners, the abusive treatment, the excessive penalties and all that, but as an action, it was thoughtless.
And I say thoughtless because it didn't achieve its end.
What was its end? To draw more attention and compel a consideration of voter fraud.
What was the effect? The exact opposite.
Shut down any discussion of voter fraud.
In fact, legitimize a regime of censorship, not just of those people, of all of us, in discussing election fraud.
And so this is sort of the way that the right often does things.
It is without planning, without coordination.
But now let's look at the left for a moment.
Have you noticed that many of these protesters carry shields?
If you notice, these shields are pretty similar across the country.
And those shields apparently are very carefully constructed.
It takes a lot of effort to make those.
Volunteers work on making those all day, and they make thousands of them.
Number two, have you noticed that these tents that you see are all the same?
I'm looking at some pictures right now.
The tents by and large are green and gray in color.
They're gray at the bottom. They've got a green top.
What does this mean? What this means is that organizations that have a lot of money are buying hundreds if not thousands of these tents in bulk and distributing them through a network.
Think of it. You've got to get the tents to the people organizing these events on campus and deliver them to the protesters as needed.
This is all very well planned.
Moreover, point number three.
These are not...
Student protesters, at least not exclusively.
And it's not that there are student protesters with like three guys from Harlem who came to the Columbia protests.
No. According to the NYPD, about one-third of the people arrested at Columbia and most of the people arrested at CCNY, City College of New York, were not students.
A good example is, I'm looking at the picture of a woman here, and she is Lisa Fithian.
She is a 63-year-old professional activist.
That's her job.
She's a professional activist.
She gets paid. And so that's the other element.
There's a network of financing protesters, professional protesters.
What's your job? Well, I'm a protester.
$15 an hour, $20 an hour.
So, you know, they probably pay your travel expenses and so on.
Now, let's turn for a moment to the tactics.
Because the tactics, again, reflect careful thought and planning.
The big error of the administration is to allow the encampment to occur in the first place.
Because once you allow the encampment, in a sense you have set yourself up.
And this is the key for the protesters.
What they do is they want to create a situation where you have two choices.
And both choices are bad.
So let's say for example I am trying to take over as a protester a building.
You as the administration can either...
Back off and let me do it.
In which case I have success.
I've taken over the building.
I then declare victory.
I come out in front of the building and basically say I'm occupying the building.
I then can give a speech and the press will be in attendance because after all, I'm in possession of Hamilton Hall.
So that's a big win for me and a big loss for you.
I've actually taken over a major university building.
Or... Option two.
You're like, there is no way I'm going to let these protesters take over the building.
Obviously, the campus police may not be effective in stopping them.
I'm going to call in the NYPD. And this is what the protesters are ready for.
Because they know that the moment the cops show up, there is now a drama.
And the drama is vicious armed cops taking on helpless unarmed students.
So the students are ready to create, and let's think about what they're doing here, whether they're creating a tableau, they're creating a picture, they're creating a sort of a narrative for the media and for social media.
And the narrative is cops dragging students, cops choking students, cops throwing students to the ground.
So either the university is weak and surrenders, or the university is now basically Hitler.
The university is now, you know, Israel pounding on Gaza.
The university is now the strong man.
So the ingenuity of the students is that they are the ones who do the original aggression, They take over the building, or they attempt to take over the building, and then when the police stop them, they act like they're helpless, they're victims, they are being mistreated by the police.
So this is called, this is jujitsu, isn't it?
It's using the reaction of somebody else against them.
You anticipate the reaction, you produce an escalation, and then you claim to be the powerless underdog.
Of course, the key here is the media.
The students know that the media is on their side.
So when there's video, there can be video of students punching a cop.
That video is not going to be shown because the reporter will suppress it.
The reporter will show the opposite, the cop beating the student or dragging the student because that is really what the reporter is after.
The reporter has already bought into the narrative.
And not only that, but the activists have a whole network of people who do two things.
First of all, they use very sympathetic people to go out front.
So out front, you won't get some real twisted sicko Charles Manson type, who's like, yo, we took over the building, we're gonna kill everybody.
No, they'll put some 70 year old woman who says something like, oh, you know, we are in sympathy with the people of Gaza.
Or some helpless, wide eyed looking student. And you're like, oh my gosh, man, I mean, she seems maybe she's misguided, but let's not like drag her or, you know, throw her on the ground.
So they're very good at putting up spokesmen that appear sympathetic, who are, by the way, not representative of the crowd, which has thugs and people who are using violence, but those are not the people who get the microphone.
And then second of all, the left is always cutting videos of, Of showing every action where a policeman is yelling or a policeman is raising his arms.
And those are the clips that are then handed over to the reporters to share in the media and on social media.
And this is why when you look at social media or you look at the television reports, you don't see smashed glass, trashed buildings, broken doors, bloodstains on the street.
But rather you see people just sort of holding a sign or looking very kind of saintly and pacific.
So... The point to make here is that what the protesters are trying to do is their real audience is not the university.
They pretend to negotiate with the university.
Here are our demands. We want to have a meeting.
We want to have mediation.
But their point is we want to use the university to play its role in a script.
Our audience is outside the university.
It is by and large the public.
It is people who are watching the news.
It is people who are on X and on YouTube and on TikTok.
That is our audience.
And the goal of the protesters is very simple.
It is the disruption, the dismantling and the deconstruction of what they see as the power structure of society.
That's their goal. The cause is sort of, by the way, yeah, where it's going to be Gaza today, it could be, you know, it was BLM yesterday and George Floyd, it'll be climate change tomorrow, but the cause is always subordinate to the bigger cause, and the bigger cause is destruction, transformation.
The transformation of America that Obama spoke about, this is one way of carrying it out.
You might have heard Mike Lindell and MyPillow no longer have the support of their box stores or shopping channels the way they used to.
They've been part of this cancel culture.
And so, they want to pass the savings directly onto you by having a $25 extravaganza.
Now, when Mike started MyPillow, it was just a one-product company, just the pillow.
But with the help of his dedicated employees, Mike now has hundreds of products.
You've got to check them out. Some of them you may not even know about.
So, to get the word out, I want to invite my viewers and listeners to check out their $25 extravaganza.
Two-pack multi-use MyPillows, $25.
MyPillow sandals, $25.
Six-pack towel sets, just $25.
Brand new four-pack dish towels, you guessed it, $25.
And for the first time ever, the premium MyPillows with the all-new Giza fabric, just $25.
By the way, orders over $75 will get free shipping as well.
The amazing offer won't last long, so take advantage of it.
Call 800-876-0227.
The number again, 800-876-0227.
Or go to MyPillow.com.
Don't forget to use the promo code.
It's D-I-N-E-S-H Dinesh.
If you'd like to support my work, there's an easy way to do it.
Join my Locals channel.
You can become 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.
Also on Locals, you can interact with me directly.
I do a live weekly Q&A every Tuesday, 8 p.m. Eastern.
No topic is off limits.
And I've uploaded some really cool films to Locals.
Documentaries, feature films.
It's Dinesh's movie page.
2,000 Meals is up there and also the latest film, Police State.
New film is being worked on right now for this year, for this fall.
If you're an annual subscriber, you can stream and watch this movie content for free.
It's included in your subscription.
So check out the channel. It's dinesh.locals.com.
I'd love to have you along for this great ride.
Again, it's dinesh.locals.com.
Guys, I'm really pleased to welcome to the podcast a new guest.
His name is Ryan Bomberger.
He's co-founder, chief creative officer of the Radiance Foundation.
He's been named one of the 50 greatest pro-life leaders in the last 50 years.
and you can follow him on x at Ryan Bomberger, B-O-M-B-E-R-G-E-R, the website, radiancefoundation.org.
He's also written a couple of children's books, very interesting titles, He is He, and the other one, She is She.
Ryan, welcome, thanks for joining me, I appreciate it.
Let me start by just asking you a whimsical question about the children's books.
Tell me a little bit about...
I kind of know what the point is.
The point is perhaps to kind of lay a basic biological foundation for who is a boy and who is a girl.
But I'm curious about how you go about addressing this, because obviously a kid is not even aware of this ideological debate swirling around us, all this crazy trans propaganda.
How do you...
Right. Well, we live in Loudon County, Virginia, which is basically ground zero for school boards going wild.
So we felt it was important to start with pronouns and my wife, Bethany, the co-founder of the Radiance Foundation as well, and the love of my life.
We've written these books to just affirm what we already know to be true and what little kids already know to be true.
And what better way to introduce basic, not just biological truths, but biblical truths to children and through children's lit.
Because the other side is doing that all the time.
I mean, heaven knows, look at the stuff that they're introducing in these schools, starting with kindergarten.
So we thought, why not just affirm what we already know and celebrate beautiful biological reality?
And the response has been tremendous for our books, He is He and She is She.
It's just crazy that our books are considered controversial.
Yeah. I was just thinking that because, you know, there are some things that you learn as a kid where when you get older, reality is much more complex or perhaps reality is even very different.
So, for example, as a kid, you think that probably the world is flat because that's all you see.
The surface is flat. And then later you learn, oh, no, the earth is round and it's moving at a tremendous speed around the sun.
And you're like, wow, You know, I had no idea.
But this is a case where the observation that a kid has about this is a boy, this is a girl, is completely borne out and supported by the most sophisticated biology.
By, you know, by DNA and by the existence of small and large gametes.
And so... Like you say, this is a case where you are doing nothing more than reaffirming both common sense as well as science.
Let's pivot a little bit to the pro-life issue.
It's worried me a little bit.
I mean, we had such a great victory in the overturning of Roe versus Wade, the Dobbs decision.
But this had the effect of scattering the abortion debate to the states.
And there have been some referendums, and some of them in...
Purple to right-leaning states where the pro-life side has suffered defeats.
And so I wanted to ask you what you think is going wrong here because these states before at least seem to be leaning pro-life and yet you've got these referenda and they seem to pass pretty decisively.
Is it a function of money?
An organization on the part of the other side?
Was the pro-life movement like not really prepared for having to redeploy its resources to the states?
What's your kind of take on the lay of the land right now?
Yes, I will say that I actually never really supported this issue going back to the states.
I don't think the issue of life, the most fundamental right possible, should be decided on a state-by-state basis.
No more than, you know, slavery should have been decided by a state-by-state basis.
Thankfully, we have a constitutional amendment that takes care of that.
However, this approach is what we have now, since the Dobbs decision started.
And I will say, yes, I think the pro-life movement was caught off guard by the massive amount of spending.
We are outspent. We're always outspent.
The pro-life movement, I mean, you're talking some cases 10 to 1.
And that matters significantly when you have a mainstream media establishment that does not do any kind of impartial reporting.
So they're We're good to go.
And it's really hard. It's really hard to inform the public when your mainstream media refuses to do their job.
And when, of course, politicians are constantly trying to confuse the issue, saying things like, you know, you can't get miscarriage care, which is a complete lie.
You can't get care if you have an ectopic pregnancy.
It's a complete lie. Of course, there is nothing banned in any state that bans abortion that bans that care.
That's a standard medical procedure that is not banned at all.
But it's hard to overcome the misinformation.
And so, We're going into another election cycle and tons of misinformation.
But the thing is, just like slavery abolitionists who were outnumbered in many ways, who were outmaneuvered in many ways, and they never gave up because it's a righteous fight.
This fight for justice for the most vulnerable among us is worth it.
And yes, there will be defeats along the way, and we hopefully learn our lessons from the previous defeats.
And as we head into November, we're praying that we're able to to strategize in a way and communicate in a way, truths and some of the common sense that should resonate with everybody.
The other side wants abortion without limitations throughout the entire pregnancy, including partial birth abortion, and wants taxpayers to fund it.
They're the radical ones.
And that message has to go out there.
My issue is with the GOP.
They have to stop fearing what the left is cheering.
Yeah, but would you also agree...
I mean, let's use the example of the analogy of the slavery debate.
The abolitionists could never have carried the issue on their own.
In other words, what happened is that the abolitionists ultimately integrated into a Republican Party, which, in fact, did not take the abolitionist position.
The Republican Party eventually got there.
But it only got there via the medium of the Civil War.
But during the 1860 campaign, the Republicans are like, listen, we're going to stop the extension of slavery into the territories because, A, that's what will unify the North and the Republican Party, and B, that is as much as we can achieve under the circumstances.
Not to say we won't go for more later, but this is what we can achieve now.
So my question to you is this, if it could be, I mean, there are probably certain states, Texas, which is where we live and where we're having this podcast right now, you know, we basically got no abortion in Texas.
Texas is a pro-life state.
On the other hand, you've got, you know...
Cary Lake campaigning in Arizona, which is sort of a purple state, maybe slightly right-leaning.
Probably the majority of the opinion in Arizona is for some restrictions on abortion, but not a flat-out pro-life stance.
So my question is, how do you think a politician should navigate that kind of environment?
Well, unfortunately, Carrie Lake doesn't exactly have a consistent stance on the issue of life.
And this is part of the problem.
This goes back to the problem of it being relegated to the states.
Because then you have politicians who are always shifting with whatever poll is out there, instead of having firm convictions.
And that's part of the problem.
When you say, yes, it should be left to the states, and they say, well, maybe, you know, it shouldn't really be left to the states.
The problem is we see that it's successful in states like Texas, in states like Florida.
So it can be done.
I guess the problem is, do you have the more, I don't know, the fortitude to actually pursue something that you say that you believe in?
In Arizona, you know, where they repealed the 1864 law because it was so old, I guess we should repeal our Constitution.
It's interesting because it's so old.
The argument on the other side is tragic, and it's tragic that two politicians, two Republican politicians, decided to side with the Democratic Party.
But the problem is when you don't have firm convictions and they constantly change, you also dissuade voters.
From actually wanting to vote for the party that claims that it's the party of life.
And that's what I see in some of these states with politicians like Carrie Lake, where you just have no confidence in what their position is, because it's going to change with the next poll.
Yeah, I gotta say, I don't agree with you on this, Ryan, and I want to discuss this a little bit further, because, for example, Abraham Lincoln was an absolute...
Opponent of slavery.
But he recognized that if he were to campaign as an abolitionist, he would have lost the 1860 election.
Now, imagine if Abraham Lincoln lost the 1860 election, you'd have Stephen Douglas be the president of the United States.
Slavery would not only be legal, it would be pushing into the territories.
Ultimately, Douglas wanted even northern states to decide for themselves if they wanted slavery.
I guess what I'm saying is that Until one has created a kind of a moral climate in which the citizens are on the pro-life side, does it make sense for pro-life politicians to go down in flames by taking the full-throated pro-life position when...
The people in your state are not with you.
I mean, I understand what you're saying, that you're unhappy, it's being decided in the states, but that's where it is right now, right?
So, I guess what I'm trying to figure out is if, let's say you were running in Arizona, what position would you take?
Because if you were to run and say, I support the 1864 law, and let's just assume that very few Arizonans would go along with you on that point, then you get defeated and your opponent...
choice extremist comes in. So this is what I see as a genuine political conundrum for the Republican Party. It's not just a matter of being of lacking convictions or being willing to speak, it's also a matter of obtaining the consent of the governed which is a very important aspect in a democratic society.
Right and I agree with that.
I do think the situations are slightly different with a nation that was heading into a civil war because of the magnitude of slavery and how it was tearing apart the states.
But I understand your point there.
The issue, I think, is it's probably a simultaneous thing.
Yes, I understand that there's incrementalism.
For instance, there have to be compromises, and there certainly were with the abolition of slavery.
However, in that In that incrementalism, the problem is the GOP especially fails to inform the electorate.
It fails to inform the public as to what's truly going on.
For instance, why not talk about the fact that the Republican Party, the pro-life side, stands in solidarity with 3,000 plus pregnancy centers?
With 450 maternity homes.
Talk about what that translates into as far as support for women.
You would convince more people, but the problem is they're silent on all of those benefits.
And the Heartbeat Act, for instance, in Florida, where they passed $143 million to fund both pregnant and postpartum women and children to assist.
You've got Texas Alternatives to Abortion program that actually, I think it's been renamed now.
It's not called that anymore. But it actually throws several hundred million dollars in support of pregnant women and mothers.
And so the problem is none of that's talked about.
So it's really hard to shift public sentiment when you're pretending that none of that exists.
I understand that you don't want to lose.
You've got two candidates coming up in this federal election, the presidential election.
You got Biden. You got Trump, who's now expressed a, yeah, he supports states, but then he thinks some of the states went too far.
But a vote not for Trump or a vote, you know, I don't advocate, especially as an evangelical Christian, I don't advocate people not voting.
Your vote empowers the other side, pure and simple.
And I don't want that to happen either.
I want people to vote for the person who is certainly not perfect.
No one ever is.
But in this case, I understand the political reality of But I really want to emphasize and stress that these politicians can do far more than what they're currently doing.
Because the other side is running full force into their abortion extremism.
They're unafraid.
They talk about it.
They celebrate it while we're the ones being relatively silent about it.
And that's the problem that I have from a communication standpoint.
Here we agree completely that there's so much, especially now with technology, the ultrasound, I mean, there is so much weaponry available to be able to make this case in a really powerful way, even an undeniable way, because hey there's the ultrasound you can look away but you can't really deny what you're seeing and so there is a way to make the case despite the juggernaut and the tremendous amount of money on the other side so I agree
completely that there needs to be a major project of let's call it pro-life evangelism throughout the country I'm using evangelism in the broad sense of the term hey look this is great stuff and I wish you all the best I've been talking to ryan bomb order Co-founder, chief creative officer of the Radiance Foundation.
Follow him on X at Ryan Bomberger.
The website, radiancefoundation.org.
Ryan, thank you very much for joining me.
Thanks so much.
I'm continuing my discussion of the four currents, the four folkways, the four importations of British culture and British people that shaped the original America, the America in the hundred or so years before the founding.
And according to historian David Hackett Fisher, these four streams came not at the same time. They all came 10 or 20 years apart from each other and they came, and this is an interesting point, in response to the shifting currents of politics within Great Britain.
So we've talked about the Puritans.
That's group number one who shaped the culture of New England.
We're now going to move to the second group.
And this is the group that Fisher calls the Cavaliers.
These are Englishmen from a different part of England.
More the southern parts of England.
And they came to Virginia and established what we would today recognizably call the culture of the American South.
Even when we see people today in Louisiana or in Oklahoma or in North Carolina or South Carolina, many of these people were original Virginians who then pushed further forward For the West, but they stayed south of the Mason-Dixon line.
Now, let's talk about the English Civil War, because the English Civil War is what created both these two currents of migration, the Puritan as well as the Cavalier.
Let's remember that the English Civil War was fought between, you guessed it, Puritans and Cavaliers.
Who was on the Puritan side?
Well, sometime, if you're interested, go back and watch the old Hollywood movie.
It's now, you know, decades old, called Oliver Cromwell because it depicts the English Civil War with King Charles, Charles I, on the one side.
Now, Charles I represents the Anglicans.
His army was called the Cavaliers.
And on the other side, Oliver Cromwell, who becomes the charismatic, dynamic leader of a group that was militarily and politically called the Roundheads.
But these were, in fact, the Puritans.
And ultimately, in the English Civil War...
The Puritans were victorious.
Parliament defeated, if you will, the king.
The cavaliers were routed by the roundheads.
Oliver Cromwell became, in a sense, the ruler, I would go further and say the dictator of England.
And this lasted for a period of several years before the Ultimately, the royalists made their way back, and England had this kind of shifting back and forth.
But here's the point. Every time there was a shift, it produced runaways, refugees, exiles.
So when the king was firmly in power and was crushing the Puritans, the Puritans got out of there.
Many of them ultimately ended up in Massachusetts, in Rhode Island, in the northeastern part of the United States.
When the tide of the Civil War turned and the king was defeated, ultimately executed, and the Puritans came to power, guess who decided to skip town and leave England and come to the United States?
None other than the defeated Cavaliers.
So, not surprisingly, the people who came to Virginia...
We're very different politically, culturally, even religiously than the Puritans.
And that's why they were fighting, because they were so different.
Their differences were, at least in England, irreconcilable.
And these are the people who settled in Virginia.
There was... Of course, a family called the Berkeley family.
They were the ones who became the ruling power in Virginia, actually, for the first several decades.
But then many other prominent families came as well.
Then the Puritans came from the middle class.
Most of them were artisans, they were traders, they were merchants.
But the Virginians were aristocrats.
No surprise. They were the party of the king.
So you're going to get people of royal blood, prominent courtiers, people who are earls and counts and viscounts and so on.
And these are the kinds of people who are going to come to Virginia.
But they also brought with them a whole bunch of indentured servants.
No big surprise. And the servants were obviously mostly from the lower class.
These are people who were, in some cases, orphans, in some cases people who were just desperate to get out of England because of the grinding poverty.
And so, while the Puritans were all people of the middle, you could say, for the most part, with some exceptions, the people who came to Virginia represented the top and the bottom of English society.
And we can actually see the residue of their original settlements if you just look at the areas around Virginia You will find even the names echo the types of people who came because, think of it, these were royalists.
They loved the power structure in England.
They believed in hierarchy and aristocracy.
So if you look at the counties in Virginia, here's the historian David Hackett Fisher.
He says, you have James City County, named after King James.
Charles City County, named after Charles.
Elizabeth City County, these are all royal names.
Prince George, Prince Anne County, King William County, King and Queen County.
So, right here you see the people who came attached names to places in Virginia that reflected English aristocratic names, English aristocratic places.
And... And these are people also who brought with them, and this I find quite amusing, a kind of distinctive accent, an accent especially prominent in the south of England, which was brought to America, and some traces of that accent persist to today.
And by accent here, I don't just mean the southern drawl, which is part of it.
This drawl, by the way, is not, some people may think, well, the drawl developed in the American South because things were really slow.
No, it's not like that.
Really slow people who are used to speaking very slowly came originally, and that's how they speak even now in certain parts of England.
And Fisher is really good on this because he has a really good ear for words.
So he says, for example, the Virginia dialect had its own vocabulary.
Instead of saying hello, the Virginians like to say howdy.
Hey, I say howdy.
That's a legacy of this strain.
They don't say unwell. They say I'm doing poorly.
P-O-R-E-L-Y. I'm doing poorly.
If you resemble...
Your aunt, they say that you, quote, favor your aunt.
So favor here means resemble.
And that's an eccentric use of the word favor.
Favor isn't normally used in that way.
Book learning is a term that is often used for schooling.
I'm not very much into book learning.
Also the way things are pronounced.
The early Virginians didn't say floor, they said flow.
They didn't say door, they said dough.
They didn't say for, they said fo.
They didn't say this, they said this.
So you've got all these little, and of course the great Texan word, y'all.
Y'all is an importation from the people who settled Virginia.
So it goes all the way back.
It's not something...
When I first came to America, I thought that some of these mannerisms were developed in America, kind of in response to the kind of environment and the circumstances.
But no, Fisher points out that a lot of this was brought from the beginning and then transmitted down.
These Virginia speech ways were not invented in America.
I'm not quoting.
Virtually all the peculiarities of grammar, syntax, vocabulary, pronunciation, which have been noted as typical of Virginia, were recorded in the English counties of Sussex, Surrey, Hampshire, Dorset, Wiltshire, Somerset, Oxford, Gloucester, Warwick, or Worcester.
Wow.
So, these are the people who made not America, but they made the American South.
I mean, looking back on all this, it's kind of easy to see how some of the conflicts that occurred in England, for example, the English Civil War, were replayed on a completely different canvas when, for example, New England allied itself strongly with one side of the anti-slavery debate,
and then of course the Virginians and the South were completely on the other side of the same debate, and these two groups, now displaced onto a completely different continent, were the key elements of broad coalitions that went to war against each other in 1860.
Subscribe to the Dinesh D'Souza Podcast on Apple, Google, and Spotify.
▲
Export Selection