All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 22, 2024 - Dinesh D'Souza
47:03
DONKEY TALK Dinesh D’Souza Podcast Ep902
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Coming up, I'll talk about Obama, I'll talk about Tim Walz, Oprah Winfrey, the donkey talk at the Democratic National Convention.
Tom Fitton, the president of Judicial Watch, joins me.
We're going to talk about the role of the CIA on January 6th, Biden, corruption, a lot more.
And I'll tell you how Booker T. Washington met the woman who would become his future wife, Olivia Davidson.
Hey, if you're watching on Rumble, listening on Apple, Google, or Spotify, please subscribe to my channel.
This is the Dinesh D'Souza podcast.
The times are crazy and 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 lot of donkey talk at the Democratic National Convention and With each hour that passes, more and more nonsense is spouted and there's so much to comment on.
I'm going to take a little bit of a shotgun approach and offer commentary on a series of different things that have popped up in the last day or two.
A comment about Obama.
I'm quoting here from his speech.
The other side knows it's easier to play on people's fears and cynicism.
They will tell you that the government is inherently corrupt." Now, Republicans and Conservatives have never said, and I don't say, that government is inherently corrupt.
What conservatives say and libertarians say, and libertarians have been in the forefront of exposing this, government is inherently inefficient.
And there's a reason for that, which is that government has no measure, no matrix, no index of how well it's doing.
It doesn't have a profit motive.
And so as a result, when government spends money, There is no way to evaluate whether that money is actually achieving its purpose or not.
And this is why you see that they end up spending more money and the results continue to be poor.
They maybe even get worse and so they spend more money.
So this is what we mean when we say government is inefficient.
But inefficient is not the same thing as corrupt.
In the same way that somebody who, let's just say, is a bungler and a fool and messes up their life that way is not the same as somebody who is deceitful and evil and an embezzler.
Corruption is more in the second category.
And I'll be talking today to Tom Fitton from Judicial Watch.
One of the questions I want to ask him is We seem to have so much corruption in this country today at high levels of our institutions.
Is that something that has escalated?
I think it has.
And if I had to point where the turning point was or is, it is Obama himself.
So when he says that we say that government's inherently corrupt, it's not inherently corrupt, it's corrupt because of you.
It's corrupt because of the institutionalized corruption that seems to have, if not begun, then at least ramped up under Obama and then ramped up even more under Biden.
No one is saying that Republicans are somehow immune, but what we are saying is that Republicans are They are Lilliputians, they are amateurs, they are not in the same league as Democrats when it comes both to government spending, which is to say inefficiency, and also government corruption.
Oprah.
I have been on the receiving end, she says, of racism, sexism, and income inequality.
Are we talking about the same Oprah?
Yes we are!
And is this Oprah doing... this is her attempt at stand-up comedy?
No!
Oprah's being serious!
Oprah thinks that she's a victim of racism, sexism, and income inequality.
Well, first of all, she's right about the third part, but she's...
She is an exhibitor of income inequality at the top end.
In other words, she's not being deprived of anything.
She's now a billionaire.
Her net worth, as of last report, something like 2.7 billion dollars.
In fact, it's an unheard of net worth for somebody in the media.
Now, again, I'm not begrudging Oprah her net worth, but wouldn't it be nice if Oprah had given a different kind of a speech and said in effect, hey, listen, you know, it's not too many countries where somebody like me, who has sort of not all that much going for me, but I've got the gift of the gab and I'm kind of savvy and I've, I've got a relatability factor not just to black women but also to white women and I was able to make a highly successful show and kind of cash in big time on it.
And I did this even though I'm a woman and even though I'm black and what that shows you really is that being female and being black are hardly obstacles.
So this would have been the normal Oprah speech to give.
And I wonder how many people watching Oprah weren't, if they were struck by the sort of, not just the hypocrisy, but the sort of dichotomy between this woman who lives in mansions, travels by private jet.
And of course, this was the case all over the convention.
I find it almost amusing to see how Democrats rail against the rich.
We're gonna curb them.
We're gonna teach them a lesson.
It was Chris Cuomo, by the way, of all people, and I shared this on my On my ex, on social media this morning, Chris Cuomo, in a very kind of telling analysis, says, I'm standing at the Democratic National Convention, and when I look up at the hall, you have these elite Private suites in the top floors.
It's a little bit like when you go to a theater, you see all those boxes, and you know those boxes are all reserved for major corporate donors.
Basically, the fat cats sit in those seats.
And in this case, there's fat cat upon fat cat upon fat cat, people who give millions of dollars to the Democratic Party, and they're presiding over the convention.
They're looking down in a very literal way at all the little ordinary peon activists who come from, you know, Milwaukee, and they come from Idaho, and they come from all over the place.
And these are the people who are expected to do the work.
in getting their candidates elected, but you've got the people providing the fuel, the cash that oils the democratic machine.
All those people are there too, except they're kind of, they're playing a, they're not playing a backseat role, because they have a front seat role.
They are the ones who get their phone calls returned.
If they call Tim Walz, he's going to call him back.
If they call Kamala Harris, she's going to call him back, because that's the guy who just gave $5 million.
The ordinary activist has absolutely no hope of getting their phone calls returned.
So this was Chris Cuomo pointing all this out.
And pointing out that, yes, this is a feature, frankly, of Republican conventions and Democratic conventions, but it's not a matter of a pox on both your houses because the Republicans don't rail against the rich.
The Republicans don't say, oh, you're evil if you make money.
We've got to teach these billionaires a lesson.
We've got to take their stuff.
So it's almost like the Democrats are engaged in a A sort of a stagecraft and a theater aimed at public consumption.
People go, oh yeah, we got to go after the fat cats.
But the fat cats are sitting back, they're laughing, they're having drinks.
They have learned to get along with this rhetoric, even to encourage it.
Because they know that there's a certain toothlessness behind it.
Or to put it differently, that if Democrats do anything against the rich, they will all get carved out exemptions.
Not only that, not only will they not be hurt, they will actually benefit.
So the Democrats will say, hey, listen, we're going to give it to the oil and gas industry, because those are people who are on the Republican side.
We're going to fund the climate industry, the electric car industry, the this or that.
And you guys are going to You guys are going to make tens of millions of dollars.
So, in the end, it's a financial racket that's going on, but a financial racket camouflaged by the rhetoric that's coming out day-to-day.
Yesterday from Tim Walz, and of course, tonight it's going to be Kamala Harris.
More of the same, and I'll talk about Kamala Harris's rhetoric, of course.
Tomorrow, this is the Democratic National Convention.
This is Donkey Talk.
Are you feeling overwhelmed by the increasing cost of health insurance?
Have you had enough of not having control over your health care dollars?
Introducing ShareRight.
It's health care done the right way.
At ShareRight, you're not just a number, you're part of a caring community.
And forget about paying excessive premiums.
With ShareRight, you stand to save 30 to 50 percent compared to health insurance.
So think about what you could do with all those savings.
But it's more than just savings.
ShareRight ensures you have access to the care you deserve precisely when you need it, from routine checkups to unexpected emergencies.
With ShareRight, your health care is their top priority.
Empower yourself today.
Take control of your healthcare costs.
Visit shareright.org slash Dinesh to learn more.
See how much you can save.
Visit shareright.org slash Dinesh.
That's shareright.org slash Dinesh for healthcare done the right way.
There's a communist plot to take over America.
The new documentary, Beneath Sheep's Clothing, exposes the dark truth.
Marxist-Leninism ideology is being pumped into the soft heads of American students.
American schools have been turned into Marxist-Maoist re-education centers.
Here's the thing about communism.
When it comes knocking at your door, it doesn't say, hi, I'm here to impoverish, enslave, and murder you.
It says, I'm here to liberate you from oppression.
You take over the colleges of education, then you take over all the teachers, then you take over all the students, and thus you get the future.
Beneath sheep's clothing reveals the communist infiltration of America's education system, churches, and media.
Will a political revolution be next?
Or will we the people wake up and reclaim our freedoms?
Destroy the opposing country through unconventional methods.
Take America without firing a shot.
Don't miss Beneath Sheep's Clothing.
Available now.
Watch it today.
Go to SalemNow.com at SalemNow.com Very interestingly, Tim Walz was introduced at the Democratic National Convention as a command sergeant major.
And he has been calling himself a command sergeant major for years.
In fact, really since almost the beginning of his career, there are on social media compilations of him doing this again and again and again and again.
And it's not true.
He wasn't a command sergeant major.
So this is stolen valor.
This is not a matter of him misspeaking, because you can misspeak in a podcast, you get it wrong, or you got the title amiss.
But if you've been doing this your whole career, then this has been a scheme to elevate your military status above what it ought to be.
CNN had a discussion, Dana Bash and others, making the point that the Democrats are trying to introduce an alternative model of manhood.
Apparently, according to them, this is from the left's point of view, you've got sort of toxic masculinity, and that's JD Vance, and that's Trump.
These are those sort of manly men, and there's something somehow over-the-top, boastful, not really true.
manliness or not manliness for the 21st century, but somehow Doug Emhoff, who is Kamala Harris's husband, so sort of the house husband, and then Tim Walz, who's the assistant coach, this is a different and a healthier type of, maybe a softer type of manliness, but nevertheless the kind of manliness we need today.
Quoting Dana Bash, he might not be the testosterone-laden gun-toting type who wants to listen to Hulk Hogan.
It's okay to be a man comfortable in his own skin who supports a woman.
Now, In my view, this distinction between the kind of Hulk Hogan archetype of masculinity and the kind of soft masculinity that supposedly Doug Emhoff and Tim Walz represent
This is a bogus distinction because the truth of it is neither captures the true meaning of masculinity.
Masculinity is not restricted to getting into the MMA ring, it's not restricted to showing your chest or speaking in a raspy voice, but neither is it represented by the opposite of those qualities, not at all.
Masculinity is actually something, and manhood, that is in some ways different than womanhood.
And I say this, one of my favorite western movies is High Noon.
And in High Noon, the protagonist, I think it's Gary Cooper, plays a sheriff, and he has arrested this bad guy, but the bad guy is now out of prison and is coming to town at noon, high noon, to terrorize the town to get his revenge.
And the townspeople are terrified, but they have no response to this threat.
And it's going to be Gary Cooper's job, even though he's retired, even though he just got married, and he got married to a pacifist who doesn't like to fight, doesn't like violence.
And everyone in the town is telling Gary Cooper, you take off, you go on, we're gonna be okay.
But Gary Cooper has got to realize they're actually not going to be okay.
And oddly enough, there are many people in the town who are more opposed to Gary Cooper, the sheriff, for all kinds of reasons.
The deputy wants his job, so he wants the old sheriff to leave so he can take over.
None of them are real men.
This is the point of the story.
And the real man, Gary Cooper, is not portrayed as Hulk Hogan.
He's actually not even portrayed as John Wayne or even Clint Eastwood from some of the spaghetti westerns.
Not at all.
The Gary Cooper figure throughout the film is a little bit moody.
He's a little bit detached.
He's not a man's man.
In fact, most of the men in the town are not supportive of him.
He is a man in this sense, that he sees a crisis, he recognizes there's something that needs to be done, he recognizes that no one else is going to do it and it's going to be up to him to do it, if anyone can do it at all.
He recognizes further that there are a number of the gangsters, as it turns out, three main ones, and it's going to be three against one, and there's a reasonably good chance that they will get him instead of him getting them, and he pushes forward nevertheless.
Now I said that there's a fundamental difference between manhood and womanhood, and I don't mean by that that I'm, I know what's a man, I know what's a woman, am I a woman?
No, I'm not talking about that.
What I'm actually talking about the fact is that all women, in some ways, become women. All girls become women. Womanhood in that sense is not an accomplishment. It's something that comes naturally. No one sits around questioning whether, you know, was my mother a woman compared to my grandmother? No, they were both women. But if you ask a different question, which is, was my dad a real man?
Is Dinesh a real man?
Is Doug Emhoff a real man?
That is a kind of a moral question.
Because there are many men, men in the sort of biological sense, who aren't real men, who don't achieve manhood in the full meaning of that term.
And so, this was my reaction watching this little Almost pathetic circus spectacle of Democrats talking about the two rival archetypes of manhood.
I thought to myself that if you want to see real courage, real courage is Donald Trump showing up at his granddaughter's play.
It's Donald Trump saying, fight, fight, fight, after he's been shot.
A bullet has grazed his ear, and there could be other shooters, and there could be more bullets, but he still draws himself up to full height.
That is real manliness of a kind that I don't think that either Tim Walz or Doug Emhoff could ever emulate.
You asked and MyPillow listened.
They're finally bringing you the most requested offer ever right now.
You can get the queen-size premium MyPillow.
This is the most popular pillow for just $19.98.
Very good deal.
MyPillow is made with patented adjustable fill.
It adjusts to your exact individual needs regardless of your sleep position.
It helps keep your neck aligned.
It holds its shape all night long.
So you get the best sleep of your life.
But that's not all.
Deals all around.
Get the six-piece kitchen of bath towel sets just $25.
The brand new mattress topper as low as $69.98.
The famous MyPillow bed sheets for as low as $25.
And there is so much more.
Here's the number to call 800-876-0227.
Again, It's 800-876-0227 or you can go to MyPillow.com when you use promo code Dinesh.
You get big discounts on all the MyPillow products including the premium queen size MyPillow just $19.98.
That's the lowest price ever so don't delay order today.
Go to MyPillow.com.
Don't forget to use the promo code.
It's D-I-N-E-S-H Dinesh.
I'd like to invite you to check out my Locals channel.
It's a great way to support my work, become an annual subscriber.
I post a lot of exclusive content on Locals, 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.
Typically on Tuesday, no topic is off-limits.
I also have Dinesh's movie page up on Locals.
It's got some documentaries, feature films.
2000 Meals is up there.
The most recent film, Police State, and the new film coming out this fall will be up there as well.
Hey, if you're an annual subscriber, you can stream and watch this movie content for free.
It's just included with 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 delighted to welcome to the podcast Tom Fitton.
He is the president of Judicial Watch.
It's a public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, founded, by the way, in 1994.
According to the Hill newspaper, Judicial Watch was named one of Washington's top 10 most effective government watchdog organizations.
Tom has a new book coming out in October.
It's called Rights and Freedoms in Peril, an investigative report on the left's attack on America.
It's available for pre-order.
The website judicialwatch.org.
You can follow Tom on X, at Tom Fitton, F-I-T-T-O-N.
Tom, welcome.
Thank you very much for joining me.
Let me start by asking you a general question about government corruption.
It seems like we're dealing with an avalanche of corruption on so many fronts.
Is it the case that corruption has escalated dramatically in the last couple of decades, or is it just that it's getting more exposure now?
I think a little bit of both.
I mean, compared to other countries, the United States is relatively Good.
But we kind of have this in-your-face corruption, and there are kind of two types of it.
There's two types of corruption, I would submit.
You've got the personal corruption.
We'll talk about Biden family corruption and issues like that.
But then you've got this lawlessness, right?
And that has to do with more of a communist approach to governance, which is the laws don't matter.
The rules don't matter.
In the case of the Biden administration, spending hundreds of billions of dollars without authorization is no big deal for them.
In fact, they glory in it.
And that that's a serious type of corruption as well.
And so we got a twofer with the Biden administration.
We have a president with this personal corruption on top of this government corruption in terms of governance and refusal to abide by the rule of law in terms of how he's supposed to behave as president.
Do you think, Tom, I mean, when I first came to America, I kind of got my civics book, Understanding of America, and of course we learn about the structure of government, checks and balances, separation of powers, an independent judiciary.
Do you think that we are experiencing something of a A system breakdown?
And by that I mean, are the different institutions that are supposed to be keeping an eye on one another doing their job?
How is the government able to get away with what you're describing, I guess is my question.
Well, in some ways the government does do its job.
Sometimes the courts do check lawlessness, for instance.
Sometimes Congress does uncover government corruption and does perform its oversight effectively.
And sometimes we have presidents who try to obey the law and fulfill their duties as the Constitution requires.
I think what's changed, you know, as opposed to kind of the incompetence of getting things done, which is generally what happens at the federal level, as we all know, you know, we have the sustained attack on those institutions, Dinesh, and those institutions, as you highlight, where people should understand, are designed to protect our liberty.
So when we have The judiciary branch, separate from the legislative branch, separate from the executive branch, and those distribution of powers or separation of powers, it's not just a constitutional word that you're supposed to learn about in civics.
It is essential to the protection of our freedom because the founders understood if all those powers were consolidated and exercised by one political branch or politician, that's tyranny.
So the left is now committed to destroying those branches in the separation of powers.
They're attacking the Senate through the attack on the filibuster, attacking the independence of Congress, the ability of Congress to actually have legislative control of the executive branch, for example.
And, of course, they want to blow up the Supreme Court.
Figuratively speaking.
Sometimes the left actually wants to kill Supreme Court justices, which is outrageous, as we saw with Kavanaugh.
But, you know, those are the core elements of our liberty.
And so those attacks on the institutions of our government aren't just about, oh, is this good government or bad government?
This is about whether we're free or not.
Tom, let's talk about some of the work that Judicial Watch has done in some key areas.
And I want to start by asking you about the presence of the CIA in Washington DC and at the Capitol on January 6th.
Now, as I understand it, the CIA is supposed to do its machinations abroad.
The FBI is our domestic police agency, and yet we seem to have seen a bit of a blurring of the lines between these intelligence agencies.
Was the CIA in any way involved in January 6th, and what do we know about that?
They were.
And, you know, I looked at probably hundreds of thousands of Freedom of Information documents, and there are a few documents that surprised me.
Some of the things confirmed what I thought, and so it's good to see it confirmed and to see proof of the concern.
But here we're going through documents.
It was from a separate agency a few months ago, Dinesh, and they detailed how CIA had teams there on January 6.
that helped respond to those explosive devices supposedly left behind at the RNC or the DNC, and they had other teams on standby.
And I was surprised.
I was generally surprised.
I said, well, we didn't know the CIA was involved.
I mean, it's one thing to have the CIA monitor Foreigners abroad who might want to intervene and and disrupt an official government operation or meeting.
It's another thing to have them on the ground engaged in domestic law enforcement operations and or emergency response.
I think people should be asking more questions.
Well, how did they get there?
Why were they there to begin with?
How did that happen?
What else were they doing?
And of course, based on those documents, we asked for more answers from the CIA.
We got the proverbial, you know, hand to the face.
So we're in federal court right now suing for answers.
Yeah, I mean, it seems so maddening that when not just the CIA, but when you're dealing with the FBI or dealing with the Secret Service and the Trump assassination attempt, I mean, it seems like, quote, ongoing investigation or national security.
They've got some mantras that are routinely put out to avoid having to give information.
I mean, not just to you, even to Congress.
That's right.
They haven't released, it's been now what, five weeks since the assassination attempt, the FBI nor the Secret Service, at least to Judicial Watch, I can't imagine to anyone else, they have not released one document under FOIA about the assassination attempt.
Use any excuses you're highlighting.
Ongoing investigation, there's an ongoing prosecution potentially.
Who are they going to be prosecuting?
It's clearly a delaying tactic.
It's exercise in bad faith.
And, you know, we have to run the administrative traps and kind of let the time run before we can sue.
But we're going to sue.
But in the end, unless there's a radical change in approach, we won't see these documents well until after the election.
Wow.
You mentioned the two types of corruption, the personal corruption and the and the sort of institutional lawlessness.
I noticed that the House was at the House Oversight Committee that just recently issued a report in a sense saying, OK, we've put all the facts together.
It's pretty obvious to us that tens of millions of dollars, somewhere in the range of twenty five million dollars has flown has has moved into the coffers of the Biden family.
I mean, the bagman might have been Hunter over here and James Biden over there, but it's all going into the same kind of family fund.
And this is, quote, impeachable.
And yet it's coming at a time when we're a little bit late in the game, a little bit before the election.
You don't get the feeling that any real impeachment is going to be carried out.
And so, I'm sure there are people who are reading this who think, wow, if you got the goods on these guys, is it going to be just another case where, gee, we now know all of this is happening and has happened, but the bad guys are going to once again make their getaway?
Oh, the Republican House has abandoned impeachment.
I don't know how else to interpret what's happening.
As you point out, it's August.
They're on vacation until September 8th.
They have a six-week vacation, or what they call district work periods.
I love that little Orwellian phrase.
And so I think the Republicans who were doing the investigation put out this report to put a little pressure on the leadership, Speaker Johnson, to move forward with an impeachment vote.
But one would have happened by now, I would have thought.
We had the strongest case for impeachment of a president, at least in my lifetime, and certainly going back 50, 60 years, and they haven't done anything on it.
And they haven't provided leadership.
You know, if there's a political challenge in getting those votes, There's been no political leadership to change minds, get the public support behind this.
Zero interest in the accountability here.
And of course, they're just focused on the personal corruption of Biden here and its intersection with national security and foreign policy, which is important.
But they could have impeached him over the invasion.
They could have impeached him over the censorship.
They could have impeached him over the effort to jail Trump.
So they picked what they thought was the strongest, and they're letting it die on the vine.
And it's excusable, in my view.
I mean, here you really see the difference between the two sides, right?
I mean, with the left, the Democrats, they've got nothing.
I mean, here's Trump doing a call with Zelensky.
He's like, you may want to look into Biden corruption.
And of course, there's a legitimate basis for that.
Impeachment number one.
You know, January 6th, march peacefully and patriotically to the Capitol.
At no point does Trump say, go inside the Capitol and try to stop what's going on.
Impeachment number two.
So, it looks like whether it's the impeachments or the criminal charges, the left is sort of like, indict first, impeach first, and then investigate later.
Republicans are like, investigate, investigate some more, investigate some more, and then do nothing.
I mean, there's a disproportion of I don't know if it's ruthlessness is the right word in the way that the two sides prosecute their political battles.
I mean, this is something that you cannot have gone unnoticed by someone who's on the front lines as you are.
Yeah, it's almost like it's fear-based decision-making.
You know, I think when it comes to political corruption, the record of the Republican Party over not just the last year, over decades is to kind of talk it up when it's important politically to do it around elections and things like that.
But rarely do they want to do the follow through.
I mean, if I were running this from the get go and I recommended they do this, is that, you know, we already know.
What what happened, more or less, right?
The evidence is public already was enough for impeachment.
So in my view, they didn't need to spend six months doing, quote, an investigation.
This should have been kind of like a sentencing analysis.
OK, he's he's impeachable.
Let's let's figure out how it is we process and get to the impeachment vote.
Instead, it was Boy, you would have thought, based on what one might think, based on how it's worked out, they never wanted to do this to begin with.
Yeah, very, very distressing.
Planning to lose, planning to lose.
Yeah, it's almost like they camouflage weakness in the name of being over-industrious, crossing every T and dotting every I, documenting every banking transaction, but at some point, far from that being a virtue, it becomes a pretext for Yourself doing delays that actually get you nowhere and then you go.
Oh, it's way too late the elections right around the corner Let's turn to a third topic I want to cover in the little time we have left and that is the topic of the illegals because there has to have been a very Thought out motive for letting in millions of illegals into the country.
It now seems apparent that this is not just part of a kind of a long term demographic alteration plan.
There may have been some of that as well, but you got a rather simple scheme.
Which is these illegals get driver's licenses, with that comes a voter registration card, and there's a little box that you have to check, and if you check that box saying you're a citizen, well, hey, you're now basically added to the voter rolls.
There's no system of checking, so that when you send in a ballot, it's like, wait, this guy's an illegal, so a lot of illegal votes can get through this way.
Do you think this is going to be a serious problem in 2024?
How can it not be?
Oh, it's been a serious problem since we had mass immigration.
Just think, Dinesh, it's a numbers game.
How many adults are living in the United States who are non-citizen, both legal and otherwise?
What are we at?
30, 40 million maybe now?
Let's say it's 30 million.
A percentage of them are going to register to vote illegally, some accidentally, without malice, others purposefully.
And then once they're registered to vote, it's Katie by the door.
They, as you point out, they have the ID necessary to vote in states that require it.
Many states don't even require the ID.
In the case of the recent influx, you have the Biden administration and their allies pretending the law requires to repeatedly ask these illegal aliens, as they give away taxpayer money and services, whether they want to register the vote, knowing they're generally ineligible.
And so they're, oh, no, we're just asking if they sign up and they say they're eligible to vote, that would be a crime.
But of course, no one verifies that there's it's all goes on the honor system.
So you've got a really kind of more of an immediate threat of increased numbers signing up right now to vote illegally and impacting the elections generally.
And then even in the medium term, if these aliens aren't removed, these invaders aren't removed before the next census, they're going to be counted.
And unless the laws change, they're going to be counted for the purposes of the census.
And that means Democrat states benefit because they get the population that otherwise has disappeared because the citizens have left, but has been put in there with illegals going there for benefits and other things.
And they get to protect the number of congressional seats.
And on top of that, that also impacts the electoral college power that these left-wing states have.
Some Republican states might have more congressmen than they might otherwise not have, might otherwise have had with this illegal alien influx.
But the numbers bear out that Democrat congresses are going to be more likely, left-leaning congresses are going to be more likely because of this recent influx, simply because of these aliens being here.
Forget about whether they vote.
Very scary stuff, guys.
The book coming out October 15th, Rights and Freedoms in Peril, an investigative report on the left's attack on America.
I've been talking to Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, the website judicialwatch.org.
Follow him on x at Tom Fitton.
Tom, thanks very much for joining me.
You're welcome, Dinesh.
I'm in Chapter 8 of Booker T. Washington's Up from Slavery.
Booker T. Washington has been talking about, well, he's been talking about students at Tuskegee, and he says some of the girls could locate the Sahara Desert or the capital of China on an artificial globe, but if you ask them to do the multiplication table, they couldn't.
If you ask them, if you are serving someone for dinner, which side does the knife go on and which side does the fork go on?
They have no idea.
And so, this is the issue that Booker T is talking about, the need to develop in a certain kind of sequential order.
First things first, and then you... It's almost like when you study any given subject.
So, for example, let's say you start studying history.
It would be really odd in American schools if you began studying history by talking, let's say, about the history of Papua New Guinea.
You want to start with American history.
Start at home.
And then you can, of course, expand outward.
Similarly, if you're studying math, it'd be really weird to start with equations, geometry, a proof of Pythagoras' theorem.
No!
You want to begin with simple addition, subtraction, the multiplication table, and then you can move on from that to fractions, and then eventually you're going to get to the proofs of Pythagoras' theorem, but that's not where you start.
There's a kind of peculiarity, not to mention the fact that it's difficult to know advanced things when you don't have the basics.
Now, at the end of the first six weeks, writes Booker T. Washington, a new and rare face entered the school as a co-teacher.
This was Miss Olivia A. Davidson, who later became my wife.
So, a woman walks into Tuskegee as a teacher And Booker T tells you right away that eventually he and she will get married.
So he doesn't rely on the narrative technique of suspense as a teacher and start talking about her.
He wants you to know right away that this is somebody that he will end up marrying.
But what's interesting is to look at what it is that draws him to her and vice versa.
When little more than a girl, she heard of the need of teachers in the South.
Now, Olivia Davidson was born in Ohio.
She studied in public schools there, but she thinks there's a need to help in the South, so she shows up.
Ms.
Davidson's experience showed her that the people needed something more than mere book learning.
And so she's like, I'm going to have to teach these young, and some not so young, blacks a lot of things.
Teach them practical skills, teach them life skills, teach them book skills.
Olivia Davidson goes, where can I learn to do that?
And she goes, well, there's really only one place in the country, and that is the Hampton Institute.
That's where Booker T. Washington himself was educated.
And so she goes and attends and studies there.
Then says Booker T. Washington that she also went on and completed a two-year course in education at the Massachusetts State School at Framingham, Massachusetts.
So she goes up north, the northeast, to study some more and kind of complete her teacher credentialing.
In Framingham, writes Booker T. Washington, someone suggested to Miss Davidson that since she was so very light in color, she might find it more comfortable, interesting phrase, more comfortable not to be known as a colored woman in this school.
She replied that under no circumstances and for no considerations would she consent to deceive anyone in regard to her racial identity.
Here Booker T. Washington is emphasizing that this is not a matter of like black pride and it's not a matter of I identify as black or identify as white.
It's really more that Olivia Davidson doesn't want to concede That there is a natural inferiority, a natural stigma, something wrong with being black, even black in part, if she's very light-skinned.
Clearly, she has white and black ancestry.
She's not 100% black.
In fact, very few blacks in America are.
But she's like, no, I don't really want to play these games.
I mean, that's what she's getting at.
And that's Booker T. Washington's point as well.
Race should not matter.
But part of making it not matter is not buying into a system of racial classification and racial identification, so-called racial markers.
Now, Booker T. Washington says that what struck him about Olivia Davidson is, quote, her rare moral character and life of unselfishness.
So, these are the qualities that Booker T. Washington admires.
And you can see that their philosophy of education, his and hers, very sympathical, very similar, very congruent.
They both agree that you need some book learning, but it's not only about book learning.
Booker T points out, we wanted to teach the students how to bathe, how to care for their teeth and clothing, what to eat and how to eat it properly, how to care for their rooms.
We wanted to give them practical knowledge of some industry together with the spirit of industry, thrift and economy.
We wanted to teach them to study actual things instead of mere books alone.
Now, I mentioned before the critique of Booker T. Washington, and I'm going to get to that in just a moment.
But you see here that for Booker T. Washington, education is a kind of a rounded thing.
It's holistic in the good sense of that term.
Not holistic in the sense of, you know, chanting mantras and doing kind of weird stuff, peering in your navel and chanting Aum.
Not that kind of holism.
Holism in the sense of Education for life, education for not just theoretical but also practical aspects of life, and notice, moral education.
So, for Booker T. Washington, education is about learning right and wrong.
He would not go along with the kind of modern slogan or shibboleth that, you know, well, There are facts and there are values.
This is the infamous fact-value distinction.
Facts can be known.
Values are subjective.
So, gee Dinesh, in education we need to focus on facts.
We're going to let people decide for themselves what their values are.
It's not that Booker T. Washington comes out on the fact side or the value side.
He rejects the distinction.
And it's important to reject the distinction.
Why?
Because there are value statements that are no less true than factual statements.
Well, here's a factual statement.
2 plus 2 is 4.
Here's a factual statement.
I look outside my window and I see a tree.
That's a factual statement.
Here's another factual statement.
Hitler was a bad man.
That is no less factual than the other statements I've just stated.
So, there is nothing, quote, subjective.
You can say, well, Dinesh, it's your opinion.
It's your perception that Hitler was a bad man.
Well, it's my perception when I look out of the window that there's a tree out there.
It's my perception that 2 plus 2 is 4.
When I put 2 apples and 2 more apples, I observe.
It's my perception that there are 4 apples on the table.
So, there's really just saying that something is, that's according to you, that's your perception, doesn't address the question of whether or not something is true or false.
Now, coming back to the critique of Booker T. Washington, when he says we wanted to teach them to study actual things instead of mere books alone, you can see and I can almost hear in the back of my mind the Duboisian critique.
Well, gee, that's actually very wrong-headed because We do learn practical things from books.
And I have to concede that, yes, I've learned a lot of practical things from books.
I've learned a lot of things about life from books.
It is sometimes said that books make us wiser than experience can make us.
And I'm not sure if Booker T. Washington would agree with that or not, but I certainly agree with it.
Because, think about it, your experience is very limited.
You live for, you know, 60, 70, 80, 90 years on this earth, you meet a limited number of people, and so your knowledge is circumscribed by that experience.
It's a very valuable experience, and of course it's an experience that leaves a very sharp, if not indelible mark on you, but think about when you read a book, you're suddenly in the 5th century bc in ancient greece uh or you are in you know medieval england uh in the chivalric era and so you can learn things about other times and places things that have applicability and relevance to your own life
But they're not available from experience.
So, for me, I read Booker T. Washington, I think, in the way in which he's saying, I have nothing against anything you just said, Dinesh.
I am merely saying that for people starting at the bottom of the ladder, at the beginning of life, if you will, at the beginning of this exposure to civilization, first things first, and all the things that you're praising and talking about will all come in due time.
▲
Export Selection