Dinesh D'Souza and guests dissect mysterious scientist deaths, ranging from Amy Eskridge to Joshua LeBlanc, while debating whether the US government, aliens, or biblical Nephilim are responsible amid new UAP files. Carol Swain condemns Virginia's racial gerrymandering as a partisan attack on the rule of law, whereas Carol Anderson reveals how Democrats labeled her a sellout for challenging post-civil rights policies. Economists Peter Earl and others warn that $40 trillion in national debt forces inflationary money printing, making gold a vital hedge against this hidden tax on purchasing power. Ultimately, the episode links political decay, historical revisionism, and economic instability to a looming crisis of trust in American institutions. [Automatically generated summary]
Transcriber: CohereLabs/cohere-transcribe-03-2026, WAV2VEC2_ASR_BASE_960H, sat-12l-sm, script v26.04.01, and large-v3-turbo
Time
Text
Dead Scientists and UFOs00:06:02
What's up with all these dead and missing scientists?
Were they killed by the US government?
Were they spirited away in alien spaceships?
Or were they killed or abducted precisely because they were about to blow the whistle on UFOs and space aliens?
We're now up to 12 or 13 scientists who are either dead or vanished.
That is too big a number to simply dismiss as a coincidence.
At the very least, we should explore connections among these scientists and also.
Possible motives.
Who would want them missing or dead?
I'll give you my own theory.
The disappearance seemed to have begun around 2022.
One of the first was Amy Eskridge, a researcher who investigated something called anti gravity.
She said anti gravity had previously been discovered multiple times, but each time the US government suppressed it.
Eskridge also said she was threatened with death if she published her anti gravity findings.
She said, If you see any report that I killed myself, I most definitely did not.
He said, they obviously know about you because I've had multiple, both protective and threatening interactions with various agency affiliations, whatever.
Didn't we tell this three years ago that we kill people for this?
Is she not listening?
What is she doing?
She's still doing it.
What we told her we were going to kill her three years ago.
So I have these two different scenarios floating constantly in my life where I have people being like, do it, do it, do it.
You're the one, do it.
And then I have multiple people being like, They're going to kill you.
Don't do it.
They're going to kill you.
Eskridge was found dead with a gunshot wound to her head in Huntsville, Alabama, shortly after this interview.
Her death was ruled a suicide.
Yet her father, who's a former NASA employee who worked with Eskridge on her research, oddly said he wasn't troubled.
Quote, scientists die also just like other people, he is quoted as saying.
I guess he's trying to say his daughter died under normal circumstances, yet I hardly consider these circumstances.
Normal.
Michael David Hicks, a scientist who worked at NASA's Jet Propulsion Lab for nearly 25 years, was found dead on July 30, 2023.
No cause of death has been disclosed.
His daughter, Julia Hicks, said there's no connection between her father's passing and the deaths or disappearances of other scientists.
Monica Reza, another scientist with ties to NASA's Jet Propulsion Lab, disappeared without a trace while hiking along Los Angeles Crest Highway.
Evidently, she was.
Hiking with a male and female companion from her yoga group.
According to another man, Reza was trekking behind him when he called out to her and received no response.
She was gone.
Reza was an aerospace engineer who developed a special metal used in rockets.
She worked on a project funded by the U.S. government and overseen by Air Force General William McCaslin.
McCaslin himself went missing after leaving his home in Albuquerque, New Mexico on February 27, this year.
According to the sheriff's office, He left his phone and glasses at home.
Strange.
Another interesting detail McCaslin was involved in UFO research and did consulting work for a non governmental agency, an NGO, probing the US government's UFO files.
Yet McCaslin's wife, in a Facebook post, dismissed speculation that her husband's death might be related to any of that.
Quote Though at this point, with absolutely no sign of him, she wrote, maybe the best hypothesis is that aliens beamed him up to the mothership.
However, no sightings of a mothership hovering above.
The Sandia Mountains have been reported.
While the woman was obviously trying to dispel conspiracy theories about McCaslin, the whimsical tone of this post strikes me as extremely odd.
Why are these family members, and she's not the only one, so quick to dismiss the possibility of malfeasance?
Are they being threatened in some way?
Debbie, my wife and I watch crime shows.
Usually, when there's the slightest hint of something weird, the family goes there.
My sister was hiking with her husband when she fell off the cliff.
I'm sure he pushed her.
That's what I'm used to hearing, not.
Quips about the husband being beamed up in a spacecraft.
More recently, paranormal writer and UFO researcher David Wilcock was pronounced dead at his home in Boulder County, Colorado.
Authorities said he was in the throes of a mental health crisis and that Wilcock shot himself in the presence of officials who arrived on the scene.
The death was ruled a suicide.
NASA scientist Frank Maywall died July 4th, 2024, under suspicious circumstances.
No autopsy was performed.
Melissa Cassius, who worked at the Los Alamos Laboratory, For years, she was last seen in June 2025 walking alone on a highway wearing a backpack, according to surveillance footage.
She hasn't been seen since.
Neither has Anthony Chavez, who also worked at Los Alamos and vanished in May 2025 in New Mexico.
Carl Grillmare, a Caltech astrophysicist, was shot to death on his front porch in Los Angeles County in February this year.
A 29 year old man was charged with his murder, but then released from prison by a judge, quoting, Using an unnecessary prosecution's law.
The body of Novartis researcher Jason Thomas was recovered from a Massachusetts lake three months after he was reported missing.
His wife said he was inconsolable following the death of both his parents.
A young NASA nuclear scientist, Joshua LeBlanc, who worked on space nuclear propulsion projects, was found dead after his Tesla collided with a guardrail.
His family had said they feared he was abducted when he left home without his phone.
Aliens, God, and Portals00:08:03
Now, wait a minute.
Who leaves home without a phone or wallet?
That alone raises serious questions.
Now, it's possible, I suppose, that these debts are coincidences.
President Trump, when asked about the subject, said he hoped they were a coincidence, but the FBI isn't taking any chances.
FBI Director Kash Patel says the agency is investigating possible links between the cases, and Congress is also asking questions.
Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer has asked the FBI, Department of Defense, And the Department of Homeland Security to figure out what's going on.
Naturally, the UFO connection in a couple of cases has social media very excited.
And recently, the Trump administration opened up some UFO files that have not previously been seen by the public.
More of this is to come.
Trump said he's found the material very interesting and he wants the public to decide what to make of it.
The Department of Defense calls these the UAP files UAP standing for Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena.
The files compiled over several decades.
Feature grainy photos, some video from infrared sensors, and reports of some strange orbs and cigar shaped objects.
Going back to 1948, military aircraft noted recurring instances of unidentified objects spotted in the skies over Europe.
Evidently, the Europeans have seen them too and can't explain them.
One document in the files refers to the Apollo 11 debriefing in which astronaut Buzz Aldrin reports a sighting of a bright light on their return trip back.
The crew had no idea where it came from, but assumed it was some sort of a laser.
Then, as late as 2023, a woman with longtime experience in military aircraft and drones reported an unexplained sighting in an area where airspace had been closed.
She saw an oval metallic object floating above a tree line with a bright light at one end.
Several other people also saw the object.
They all said that after a few seconds, it simply disappeared.
And there's more in this vein.
Now, I can't say I find what I've seen so far to be very convincing.
The universe is a vast place.
Hey, even our galaxy is almost unimaginably huge.
And there's probably a lot about it we still don't know.
There are things that we see that we can't explain.
Just because you don't know what it is doesn't mean.
It's an alien spaceship.
Just because you saw a light doesn't mean that the aliens are sending you coded messages.
I'm reminded of the scene in Shakespeare's Julius Caesar when there's a terrible storm and a frightened Casca interprets it as a divine portent of doom, foretelling disaster for Rome.
But Cicero remains unperturbed.
Indeed, it is a strange, disposed time, the philosopher says, but men may construe things after their fashion, clean from the purpose of the things.
themselves.
I don't think we have strong enough evidence to date of the existence of aliens, but I don't reject outright the possibility of alien life in the universe.
Here we should not fall for the logical fallacy that says the absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
The absence of evidence might simply mean the evidence has not yet been found.
True, the conditions for life to exist in our universe are extremely unlikely.
These are so called habitable zones in the universe and they seem to be extremely rare.
Earth is not the only one.
Scientists have found, but Earth is the only one that scientists have found that is known to contain life.
Whether Earth contains intelligent life or not is a subject I do not intend to resolve here.
But even if life is infinitesimally unlikely in our universe, the universe is so huge, more than 90 billion light years wide, that infinitesimally unlikely things can and do happen.
In fact, there's a very interesting equation called the Drake equation that seeks to compute the probability of life existing in our vast universe.
The equation takes into account Facts such as the number of stars that form, the percentage of stars that have planets, the average number of planets that could support life, the percentage of those where intelligent life might evolve, the percentage of intelligent species that develop technology to transmit signals through space, and the average time that a technological civilization survives and communicates.
Recently, I've seen a couple of pastors on social media speculating that if there are aliens, they must be.
Demons.
In other words, the aliens are mutant creatures similar to the giants, hybrids, and Nephilim described in the book of Genesis and elsewhere in the Bible.
Now, I'm very interested in giants, hybrids, and Nephilim.
I'm making a series called Finding Noah's Ark that will go into all this the world before the flood, the giants, and all of it.
Now, the Bible does say that in the end times things will be as they were in the time of Noah.
But here the Bible is referring to how people in Noah's time were.
Eating and drinking and making merry.
They had no idea the great flood was coming, just as people in the end times will go about their business with no idea that the apocalypse is coming and the Messiah is coming back.
God is the creator of the universe.
He's never not going to create.
So it's always been something in my mind to say, well, how can we be the only ones?
Like God's not going to stop creating just with us.
But the more I look into this, the more I see the Old Testament and what was told to us there of fallen angels and Nephilim.
I mean, this is in the Bible.
There's nothing that says that fallen angels, that Nephilim just disappeared.
And so I believe that this could be an aspect of it.
You know, there are things that we have seen that could resemble portals.
And, you know, I mean, this is, we serve an infinite God, a God of the universe.
And to say that this is the only realm is ignorant.
And so, what I've seen, I wouldn't, you know, put it as, you know, Marvin the Martian kind of thing.
But I do believe that this is more spiritual.
And if you really want to go there, demonic.
I do not think that the existence of aliens is a refutation of the Bible, nor do I think that aliens must necessarily be.
Demons.
Why?
Because the creativity of God has no limits.
If God wanted to make aliens just as he made humans, what is there to stop him from doing that?
Of course, God's plan for us is unique to human beings.
Who knows what God has in store for aliens if indeed he created them?
The Bible outlines God's plan for humanity.
We don't know what else God had in mind, and we shouldn't presume to know.
Now, back to those missing scientists, my own view is that the UFO and alien connection is a bogus one.
Only one of them had any connection to UFO research.
Space research, yes.
Nuclear research, yes.
Theoretical breakthroughs like anti gravity, yes.
So I'm not putting a lot of stock in the idea that the US government knocked off these scientists because they were to blow the whistle on extraterrestrial life and alien spaceships.
Now, the United States has powerful enemies around the world and they would like to do us in.
They don't have to work very hard to do this because our society has become quite messed up.
Mostly because of the perverse influence of the political left, broken families, dilapidated communities, kids that are neglected, schools that don't teach math and science, a devaluation of merit in our universities, a culture obsessed with the ephemeral.
We are doing what we can, alas, to drive our society off a cliff.
But the United States retains one big advantage in the world that leads the world in scientific breakthroughs and innovation.
China is catching up fast, but the biggest breakthroughs still happen here.
And the pioneers of science and technology, Are the ones who make it happen.
Crypto, Debt, and Government Secrets00:02:57
So if these debts are not a coincidence, and if I had to place my bets, I would bet that one of our enemies is behind this or behind some of it.
And that's not the only possibility.
The other is that somehow there are powerful agencies inside the US government that have something to do with these debts and disappearances.
Why is not clear, but what we do know is that there is a deep state, a police state embedded deep in the bowels of our government.
It's not above doing nefarious things.
I trust President Trump to get to the bottom of it.
There's enough smoke here that we can be reasonably sure there's fire, but we need to know where the fire is coming from.
The facts as we know them certainly merit the investigation now going on to find connections among these bizarre deaths and disappearances.
And that's the way I see it.
Here's the thing about crypto it's here to stay.
That argument is over.
But think about it.
This is a market that never sleeps.
It's moving at midnight, it's 2 a.m., 3 a.m.
And while you're asleep, who's watching?
Because here's what nobody tells you most crypto platforms give you a login, wish you luck, and call it a day.
That's not investing, that's gambling with your retirement and hoping for the best.
That's why I've partnered with Block Trust IRA.
Block Trust IRA is a crypto IRA built for Americans who refuse to be on the losing side.
Of that equation.
Their award winning AI engine navigates the notoriously volatile crypto markets around the clock, automatically rebalancing your portfolio to protect your gains and limit your exposure when markets swing.
No panic, no emotion, no miss sleep at 3 a.m.
Your savings sit inside a $200 million institutional grade insurance shield, managed intelligently and secured from day one.
Their AI never sleeps.
It's rebalancing your portfolio around the clock, managing risk, responding to volatility.
Protecting what you've built automatically, intelligently, without panic.
Voted Bitcoin Magazine number one technology platform, and that doesn't surprise me one bit.
Open your crypto IRA today, and Block Trust IRA will give you up to a $2,500 inflation shield bonus straight into your account.
Go to DineshCrypto.com and sign up today.
They can print dollars, but they cannot print crypto.
That's DineshCrypto.com.
Mother's Day just passed, but taking care of the moms in your life shouldn't end there.
Flowers are nice, but helping protect their health and making sure they're prepared matters a whole lot more.
Think about it.
Moms are usually the ones holding everything together.
Gerrymandering and Minority Districts00:16:13
When someone in the family gets sick, when there's an emergency, they're the first ones to step in.
So maybe it's time we make sure they're covered too.
Today is the final day of the Mother's Day sale at All Family.
My listeners can get 35% off the entire website with promo code Dinesh35.
They've got maintenance medications, travel meds for summer, antibiotics, antivirals, NAD, ivermectin, mebenzodol, hydroxychloroquine, and more all in one place.
And unlike the broken healthcare system Americans are used to dealing with, their process is straightforward.
You fill out a quick online form, licensed doctors review your request, prescribe if appropriate, and your medication.
Ship directly to your door.
It's simple, it's practical, it's the way healthcare should work.
Go to allfamilypharmacy.com.
That's allfamilypharmacy.com.
Use code Dinesh35 for 35% off your entire order.
Sale ends tonight at midnight.
The issue of gerrymandering and also of racial gerrymandering, the drawing of specific black or minority voting districts is front and center in the news.
And I thought to myself, who is the best person in the country to talk about this?
And then my mind flashed back to a classic work written by none other than my friend Carol Swain.
Now, Carol Swain is a distinguished scholar.
She has taught at Princeton and at Vanderbilt Law School.
She is also the author, as I mentioned, of this classic work on black voting districts and minority representation.
I believe it's called Black Faces, Black Interests, if I'm right about that.
Carol, welcome and thanks for joining me.
Let me begin by asking you about this craziness going on in Virginia, where the Virginia Supreme Court has struck down the Virginia new gerrymandered map.
And the Supreme Court basically said listen, you know, there's a procedure you need to follow according to the law.
You didn't follow it, and therefore you are in violation of the law in drawing these districts.
Virginia Democrats and the National Democrats are so freaked out that they are evidently considering a plan to lower the voting age of the justices to 54, an absolutely arbitrary number, essentially throwing out the entire Virginia Supreme Court, including, by the way, the judges that voted for them, so that they can then replace the court with new justices and apparently get a better result.
I mean, what do you make of this kind of brazen?
I mean, from the people who talk about the rule of law, isn't this an absurd and brazen attack on the rule of law itself?
Well, it saddens me because I'm a Virginian, and I can tell you that when I was a child, Virginia, the Democrats, they resisted the integration of schools.
I didn't attend an integrated school until 1968.
And so I can tell you that Democrats in Virginia have always been radicals.
So it doesn't surprise me one bit that they would first.
Tried to violate their own state constitution and impose a new system, and then they would fight against the justices of their own Supreme Court.
So I'm not surprised.
And one thing that there may be people who say, well, the Republicans did the same thing in Tennessee, they got rid of the black district, not the same thing at all, totally different situations.
Are you saying that in Tennessee, the Republicans followed whatever the law required?
I mean, one of the features of our system, Carol, isn't it, is simply the idea that we don't have sort of nationally drawn maps.
I did see, by the way, something really fascinating.
Somebody just asked, I forget if it was ChatGPT or Grok, to kind of put yourself in the position of like the founders.
Don't worry about drawing really freaky, lizard looking maps.
Just draw the most natural maps that you can across the country.
And let's see how it plays out.
And it turns out it overwhelmingly favors the Republicans.
There's something like 260 Republicans, you know, 150 or 160 to the Democrats.
So the most naturally drawn maps don't favor the Democrats.
So the Democrats, for example, have used gerrymandering as a powerful tool.
They were hoping, weren't they, that the Virginia seats would assure them of a clear House majority.
And now, something that seemed almost a fait accompli or a given seems to be an open question.
Is this why they're kind of panicking about it?
They have no shame.
They have no shame.
And I think it is why they are panicking because most of Virginia is red, except for Northern Virginia.
If they could just lock that off, give it to Maryland, Virginia would be fine.
Interesting.
So, what is.
What is the Democrats' recourse here?
I mean, as I understand it, there is a procedure for getting rid of Virginia Supreme Court justices, but it involves impeachment.
It involves the House of Delegates impeaching the justice.
I mean, this idea that you can arbitrarily lower the voting age and throw out the entire court, I mean, isn't this unconstitutional?
Well, I mean, it reminds me, the Democrats increasingly, of how people operate in third world countries.
Where there is no rule of law.
And the whole idea that they would even publicly reveal such a plan is absurd.
And for the people who support the Democrats, I would be ashamed.
And I would also not be willing to sacrifice the rule of law for a political party that hasn't done such a great job when they have had control of the state.
I mean, Carol, isn't it true that Virginia is bluish these days, partly because of the expansion of the federal government and the fact that Northern Virginia has increased its power relative to the rest of the state?
But Virginia nevertheless remains, I think, even this referendum for the redrawing of the maps, if I'm right, passed by a very narrow margin.
So could it be that there's going to be a little bit of a political backlash in Virginia as people go, listen, you know, We might have even voted for this, but this attempt to kind of essentially cancel out the power of the court.
Incidentally, I believe the judge who wrote the opinion was a Democratic appointee.
This would be a scandal to all moderate thinking, not just Republicans, but maybe Democrats also.
Well, wait a minute.
They have a state constitution that they violated with the referendum, and that's the problem.
And in Tennessee, it follows traditional redistricting where if Whichever party controls the state, whoever has the governorship and the legislatures, they are able to draw the districts to advantage themselves.
And the Supreme Court has never ruled against partisan gerrymanders.
They have always ruled against the racial gerrymanders, but not the partisan gerrymanders.
I think there's a crucial distinction here, Carol, that we should make a distinction between gerrymandering generally and the drawing of minority voting districts, which is a kind of racial gerrymandering.
Gerrymandering, as I understand it, is basically this that when you have a state, you can draw geometrically, you can divide that state many different ways.
Gerrymandering is essentially the use of geometry to carve districts in such a way that it benefits the party that does the gerrymandering.
Is that an accurate definition of gerrymandering?
Right.
After every census, every 10 years, the districts, you know, there is a reapportionment, the district lines are redrawn.
All of that is gerrymandering.
The problem comes in when the districts are supposed to be roughly of equal size.
And right now in the United States, every district should try to be at least almost 800,000, 787,000 people.
Of course, you can't do that in states like South Dakota, North Dakota, they get one representative.
But that is what the goal is.
And so when you're gerrymandering, I don't know if you remember.
You would have been a lot younger than me.
In 1993, Shaw v. Reno in North Carolina, where they had a snake like district that followed the interstate, I 85, and that was declared unconstitutional.
And what it did was connect all the black communities running through several cities.
That was struck down because it was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.
And for people that are, you know, this hue and cry as if.
The court did something unusual in Louisiana.
No, they followed that precedent.
So let's turn to this Louisiana Calais decision, Calais versus Louisiana.
As I understand it, the issue arose because a federal judge ordered, or a district judge ordered, Louisiana to draw a minority district.
And by a minority district here, we mean a district heavily populated with black voters with the intention, I suppose, of having a black representative.
Can you define?
This issue of minority districting, just in general, so people understand what it means.
And then let's get to the underlying suppositions behind that, which is what you revealed in your book.
Well, one thing the problem with the racial gerrymandering is that it violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.
But in the Louisiana case, it was Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
That prohibits discrimination against racial and ethnic minorities.
They're supposed to be able to elect candidates of choice.
And the purpose of the law was to prevent states and localities from disenfranchising black voters.
Well, black voters were not being disenfranchised in Louisiana.
They were trying, I believe, to create a second black majority district.
And when you create those black majority districts, Minority majority districts where you might have Hispanics and Blacks and other groups together, you don't necessarily ensure the election of a minority representative.
Most of the time, it will be.
Steve Cohen represented Memphis ever since he was elected in 2007, and he is clearly white, and Memphis and that district overwhelmingly Black.
And so, you know, you can't choose, and the Democrats want to have it both ways.
They argued that only blacks can represent blacks, but they didn't have a problem with Steve Cohen running for a reelection, an election.
And now they're acting as if in Memphis that black representation somehow has been harmed by the new plan when blacks have not had a black person in that seat because they had a white Democrat that was locked in.
So, isn't it the case, Carol, then, that even though the underlying logic or illogic behind these minority districts is that blacks, for example, can't be properly represented by a white representative, whether Republican or Democrat, that black interests need black faces to represent them?
And in your book, I think you drew a very poignant and important distinction.
Between, well, these are my words, not yours, but I think they reflect what you were getting at.
You can say cosmetic representation versus substantive representation.
Cosmetic representation, meaning the representative looks the same as the majority of people in the district.
Substantive representation, of course, being is the representative actually representing the values and the interests of the people in that district?
Can you tease out that distinction a little more clearly?
I can tell you that my book, Black Faces, Black Interest The Representation of African Americans in Congress, published by Harvard Press in 1993, argued that there was a trade off between having more black faces and black substantive representation.
And at that time, you know, I looked at districts, I traveled districts, I looked at roll call data, and I argued that political party was more important than the race of the representative.
Consequently, I took a position against drawing overwhelmingly black districts.
And at that time, it was clear that Democrats would elect black voters, black candidates, and that the black candidates were losing because they were so liberal.
And we had Alan Wheat in.
In Missouri, he represented an 80% white district.
And so, but the Democrats have always argued that only blacks can represent blacks.
Yet, when it serves their purposes and there's a white representative representing blacks, they don't have a problem with that.
And my book, my early research was all about that.
And it's not true that only blacks can represent blacks, only women can represent women or any group.
The descriptive representation is less important than the substantive representation.
The problem with Democrats is that they're not representing their constituents.
I mean, Carol, if you take two iconic members of Congress, let's say over the last several decades, somebody like Nancy Pelosi and maybe, say, John Lewis of Georgia.
Now, one is black, one is white, but isn't it a fact that their voting records would be highly similar?
And therefore, the idea that somehow, let's just say that they traded districts, you know, just hypothetically, a thought experiment, and that John Lewis represented San Francisco and Nancy Pelosi represented John Lewis's district in the South.
I mean, in terms of actual voting outcomes, Carol, isn't it true that we'd probably be looking at the same thing?
Exactly.
And one of the things, when the Congressional Black Caucus formed in 1973, there were 13 Black members of Congress, they said that Blacks had.
Race War and Progressive Politics00:15:00
No permanent friends, you know, we just had permanent interests.
And so they, at that time, they presented themselves as representing Black Americans.
It didn't take long for them to start supporting liberal immigration policies, the LGBTQ agenda, the NAACP took that up.
And they have always gone with whatever the white progressives wanted.
They have never been concerned about what's actually happening in the districts.
And that's one of the reasons I believe that black majority cities and localities are in such terrible, they're in such a terrible situation is because everything is about whatever the white progressives want.
And as a consequence, you get, you know, weak law enforcement, you get all kinds of dysfunction, you get situations like the Walgreens in Chicago moving out because of theft.
The communities are just being destroyed.
And these, Gangs of young people, youth mobs that are going into stores and stripping the shelves.
All of that started, I would say that part started under the Obama administration, but it's part of the progressive agenda.
I don't know what that end game is, but it's not to represent the interests of Americans, whether they are white or black.
It does not serve our interests.
And I suppose what you're saying is that when you look at these cities with very high crime rates, Memphis, St. Louis, Chicago.
You're saying that the progressives don't really care because, as long as they have a representative in there, whether black or white, that is voting with them as part of the Democratic gang, the actual conditions of the black voters in the district become irrelevant.
As long as they can sustain their guy in power, they're pretty content.
So, it supports your point that what we're dealing with here is a masquerade.
It's a masquerade that says, We're trying to make lives better for black people.
We're trying to make sure that their votes count.
We're trying to make sure that their interests are reflected.
But what is happening in consequence is nothing more than an artificial partisan advantage for the Democratic Party, because in addition to normal gerrymandering, they get these specially designated black districts, which have given them probably more seats than they would otherwise have had.
Now, going back for what, 60 or 70 years?
Yeah, I mean, absolutely that's the case.
But I would also argue that with the white progressives, they really don't care about any of the marginalized groups that they purport to champion, that it's all about them maintaining power and using those groups to get sympathy.
And that's one of the things that we find with the college campuses and the indoctrination.
They want people to have to sympathize with all these marginalized groups that they themselves oppress and only use for political purposes.
Carol, give us an idea.
Many people think of these minority districts as exclusively in the South.
How many minority voting districts are there roughly in the United States?
I'm just trying to get a sense of what the long term impact of the Supreme Court's decision is going to be.
If we got rid of all sort of minority districts or specially drawn racial gerrymandering, how would that shake out in terms of the number of seats that would fall into play?
Well, I have not done that calculation, so I don't know.
But I suspect that the voters within those districts would have improved living conditions and opportunities.
And I do know that there are several states that are almost majority minority, but that doesn't mean that it's just black white because there are other groups.
But I believe it's in the interest of the American people for the districts to be drawn fairly.
That we would maintain the population size so that you would get one person, one vote.
To the extent possible, the district should be close to 800,000 people, persons.
And, you know, Memphis, the ninth district of Tennessee, the minority population is between 350 and 400,000 people.
There's no way you can make a majority minority district unless you go to extraordinary means.
If you draw the districts naturally, The way they've been drawn, you're not going to get compact, you know, black voters that will be of the size to maintain a congressional district because it will be nowhere close to 700 or 800,000 people.
Can you spell out the logic or the original logic behind this whole notion of minority representation?
And let me tell you why it seems just inherently problematic to me because.
There are all kinds of groups in our society, right?
There are Christians and non Christians.
There are Irish and Italians and Jews.
And so all these groups form ethnic groups, and presumably they have some things in common, whether it's their religion or the fact that they eat pasta, and maybe they also have certain economic interests in common.
But the general idea of American democracy is if you give everybody who's eligible their right to vote, they would then exercise that right by making coalitions with other people who agree with them and try to get over the 51% line, or in other words, try to get a majority so you can have your guy in power.
But it seems like when it comes to Racial minorities, this logic was sort of thrown to the side, and the argument was no, that somehow, if you have a state in which, let's say, blacks are a minority, they're 15% in the state, let's say, they need to be guaranteed certain black districts.
Otherwise, their votes aren't counting, even though they have the same one man, one vote as everybody else.
I would also say that racial and ethnic minorities have the same interests as everyone else, that people want jobs.
That they want health care, they want their children to have good schools.
And so, this whole idea that racial and ethnic minorities want to be segregated only benefits the political parties, in particular the Democrats, because that's a way for them to maintain the power they have.
But to do that, they have to lie and they have to get people excited.
And I remember back in the 1990s, every time the Voting Rights Act was about to be extended, The rumor would go out that the Republicans are going to take away black people's right to vote, and they would get people all worked up.
And they have people all worked up today, making them believe that the Supreme Court has done something that is injurious to the black community when it hasn't.
It's just made it has maintained the position it has taken against racial gerrymanders in favor of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, and so the court has done nothing.
To justify what the media and the black and white leaders in the Democratic Party are saying, Carol, it seems that something quite big is underway here, and that is that the Roberts Court is opening the door to colorblindness as the basis of law and policy far more than has happened before.
I mean, we've had, we've talked about the colorblind ideal for a long time.
I suppose.
One could even trace the root of it right back to the language of the Declaration of Independence or to people invoke Martin Luther King's, we want to be judged on our merits or by the content of our character.
And yet, you know, as I do, that colorblindness has not really been the basis of our law, hardly ever.
I mean, there's the language of it in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and you quoted the language in the Voting Rights Act, but almost immediately after those laws were passed, Had a re institutionalization of race based hiring, race based university admissions, race based voting districts.
All of this happened so rapidly.
But now, do you see with the Roberts Court, with the decision on university admissions, with the decision that blacks and whites don't have separate standards to prove discrimination in hiring, and now with the Calais decision that colorblindness suddenly?
Becomes not just a theoretical ideal, but also a constitutional reality.
Well, I mean, it should be a constitutional reality.
DEI and race based affirmative action and all of that stuff should be over.
But I think that within the Republican Party as well as the Democratic Party, there are people, let's say they are goodwill, because we know the road to hell is paved with good intentions, that they believe that racial and ethnic minorities somehow benefit and they somehow need representation from members of their own group.
We can look at all the cities that have elected black mayors and Black city council members.
And what do we have?
I mean, we have worse conditions for racial and ethnic minorities.
There's a lot of theft.
And one of the things that worries me that I wish people would talk about is that in those areas, there's such high crime, and there are behaviors that Black people are engaging in that is not a part of their history.
It's almost like the Black community has been given license by white progressives.
To engage in behaviors that would be unacceptable in civilized society, I think it's so important for someone to stand up and address the criminal justice situation because it hurts every black person.
It hurts me, it hurts my grandchildren, it hurts, I have great grandchildren now too.
It hurts all of them because it makes it seem like black people are just a criminal element.
The white progressives and the Republicans and people who are silent are allowing that to take place.
They're allowing people to believe that black people are criminal because they're not dealing with the criminals.
I'm not sure what dealing with the criminals would look like, but we haven't tried to do that.
I think you're pointing out something here, Carol, that's critically important, which is that you do have people, when you look at Black rates of crime or illegitimacy.
It's very easy to say.
And you have even some people on the right who say, well, look, this is really proof that these people can't govern themselves, et cetera, et cetera.
I think what you're saying is if you look at black history, even history under segregation, under the difficult conditions of the depression and then sharecropping and then segregation, black crime rates were much lower.
Yeah.
And I think I remember when I think Du Bois, when he did the Study of black illegitimacy, this was around 1900 or 1905.
The black illegitimacy rate was something like 20 percent.
I mean, it was higher than the white rate, but it was lower than the white rate today, and of course, much lower than the black rate as it developed through the 60s, 70s, and 80s.
So, some of these sort of cultural deprivations and pathologies that you're pointing out are recent and they go hand in hand with progressive policies, don't they?
Right.
When Daniel Patrick Monaghan In 1965, he did his report on the status of the black family.
At that time, I believe it was 25% of black households were headed by females.
And he saw the pathologies, he pointed it out, and boy, he was crucified for that.
But he was right.
And what we have found is that in the 1960s, when the world went to hell in a handbasket, the black community really suffered from the progressive policies.
And what has happened is that.
The structure that undergirded black families.
And as you know, even before affirmative action, there were blacks getting into Harvard, getting into some of the elite schools.
And in New England, where they didn't discriminate, you had black alumni going back to the 1800s.
And so black people were making it happen.
But then all of a sudden, you know, the government got involved.
And I think it helped decimate the black community.
And all of these liberal judges, and we haven't mentioned, you know, Marxism, cultural Marxism, and their agenda is to take down the society.
And I believe that critical to taking down the society is using black people.
Using dysfunction and turning criminals out on the streets so they commit more crimes.
And it seems to me that there are people in this country that would like something akin to a race war.
And as a black person, I see these crimes that are highlighted on social media.
And I fear for our country and I fear for black people.
And I know that it's being driven by an agenda that doesn't care about our country, any of it.
Are you saying that the.
The Marxists, the cultural Marxists, recognize that the class division between the society is not strong enough.
It's insufficient for them to have any kind of a Marxist revolution.
But they realize that guess what?
Social Division and Class Fissures00:05:24
We do have this kind of racial dividing line, racial bitterness with a long history in this country.
So why don't we base our division on that instead of the classic Marxist class division?
And this way, we might be able to get further in this country.
I think Marcuse and some others argued this way going back to the 1960s, and now it has just become like an accepted doctrine of the Democratic Party, which is don't just divide society between the rich and the poor, but how about you divide it black and white, male and female, straight and gay?
You can use all these other types of division to exacerbate the fissures in the society as a way of, I think, as you said, breaking it down.
Well, they're doing that.
And even with the trans versus the LGB without the T, they're being divided.
I mean, everyone's being divided.
And what worries me about the crime is that young black people are being indoctrinated to hate white people.
And so these heinous crimes are taking place.
And you have these liberal judges that are turning criminals back out on the street to commit more crimes.
And this goes back to the beginning with the Democratic.
Party and their disrespect for the rule of law.
They are harming everyone when they don't enforce the laws of our land and when they push things like when they were pushing defund the police.
Well, we have a situation now where criminals are apprehended, they're put in prison, they're put in jail, and you have a liberal Democrat judge that turns them back out on the street.
Carol, where is this?
I get so angry when I deal with these issues because it's so obvious to me what the agenda is.
Other people, if they see it, they're not doing anything about it, and they should be.
Kelly, what was the turning point for you?
I know that you grew up very poor in Virginia.
You had a very hard life.
You had to go back and get your GED.
You ended up at Princeton.
For much of your career, you were a Democrat.
And then at some point, I think you began to move to the right.
Was there a particular thing that you saw that made you realize that you actually belonged more on the right end of the spectrum?
Can you talk about where your own transformation was?
What was the critical turning point?
Well, I was never like the other Democrats in the sense that I've never seen myself as a victim.
I was always kind of a person that if someone told me that I couldn't do something, it was like throwing the gauntlet down.
I was going to show them that I could.
And I was a Democrat, but I would say that I was a common sense Democrat.
And during my young adulthood, there were a lot of common sense Democrats.
For me, the turning point, I guess, was when I had a Christian conversion experience in my 40s.
But I was never, you know, like I was always a person that questioned things.
I could always see through things.
And so I did not fit very well.
And progressives didn't accept me as a Democrat.
I'm the only Black faculty member that I'm aware of that didn't get invited to the Clinton White House.
I had published the book, Black Faces, Black Interest, the Representation of African Americans in Congress.
1993, that was my tenure book, won all the national prizes, but it didn't say what the left wanted said.
And so they were calling me a sellout.
And there were some people that were saying I was conservative, and this was while I was a Democrat.
And so for me, I've never fit in with the Democrats, and it's because I'm just a thinker.
I ask questions, and I try to hold everyone accountable, including my own team.
Carol, I think I remember back to you said 1993.
So I published my first book, Illiberal Education, in 91.
And I became aware of yours as I was researching my next book, The End of Racism.
And I noticed that you were coming, your reputation was on the left, but you already then were raising questions about the idea that if you're black, you need a black representative.
I mean, you were questioning the foundations of.
Kind of post civil rights policy, and that set you on a long journey.
Later, of course, you are one of the stars of our film Hillary's America, where you laid out in sort of riveting detail the racist history of the Democratic Party.
I want to do a follow up episode with you for next week in which we dive into that.
But for now, thank you very much for joining me.
Thank you.
Peter Earl is an American economist, a writer, a data scientist.
He's director of economics and a senior research fellow at the American Institute for Economic Research.
Gold Prices and Economic Clouds00:08:39
He's a PhD in economics.
He also has a BS in engineering.
He's served for 20 years as a trader and analyst in various securities, security firms, and hedge funds.
He's also consulted in the cryptocurrency and gaming sectors.
Peter, welcome.
Thanks for joining me.
When you look at the American economy today, Do you see blue skies or do you see storm clouds or do you see a little of both?
Yeah, it's a good question because I think really there's two themes right now in the economy, right?
The first is, of course, a lot of high expectations, a lot of enthusiasm about AI and what AI is going to do, productivity, that sort of thing.
There's a dark side to AI too, but we'll stay on the positive side for right now.
But then the other thing is what's happening right now with changes at the Fed and with what's going on in Iran and what looks like it's happening with the oil prices.
So there's worry about.
Inflation returning, prices rising again, that sort of thing.
So the two of these are right now kind of providing a somewhat cloudy picture of where the economy is headed.
It seems like we're going to get a new Fed chair soon, but one fixture that the country has to deal with, there's no alternative, is this giant national debt, $39 trillion and counting.
Do you think that there is any alternative to what the Fed has been doing for the past several decades, which is essentially printing money?
To service the debt?
So, this is the uncomfortable question that's hanging over not only the U.S., but the global economy right now.
U.S. federal debt is approaching 120% GDP, we're at nearly $40 trillion, and the interest costs are rising rapidly.
As yields rise, so does the interest on our debt.
So, there's a lot of pressure, both implicitly and implicitly, for monetary policy to remain easier than it should be.
If you look at history, all throughout history, heavily indebted governments have rarely solved their debt problems by spending less.
What they typically do Is rely on some combination of inflation and financial repression to reduce the burden of real debt.
I think what you're saying is there are three ways to deal with the debt, right?
One is to spend less.
They don't want to do that.
The other is to raise taxes.
They don't want to do that either.
And so they're kind of forced into the third alternative, which is the easy way out for them, which is to print money.
Now, can you explain how printing money or inflating the money supply diminishes the purchasing power of money?
Right.
So basically, money is like any other good, right?
When you dramatically expand the supply of it relative to the demand, the value tends to fall.
So if the quantity of dollars in the economy rises much faster than the economy's output, each dollar represents a smaller claim on real wealth.
Now, that doesn't happen evenly, it doesn't happen instantaneously.
We see things like housing and stocks and things like that move first while others lag behind.
But I think the most important thing to know is that inflation is basically a hidden tax.
Right.
So someone may technically earn more money now, more money or more dollars now than they did five years ago.
But if groceries, insurance, fuel, and all those prices are rising faster than their income, they are essentially getting poorer over time.
That's how it works.
I mean, could we illustrate it in the simplest form by saying, you know, let's take a primitive economy and let's just say that all that you have in the economy is like 10 marbles, right?
And then all that you have in the economy is $10, in which essentially it's $1 for each marble.
But now if you double the money supply, you have $20, but you still have 10 marbles.
What's going to happen?
The marbles are going to cost more, or to put it differently, the money, each dollar is going to buy less, right?
That's the simple illustration, economics 101.
Now, in these kind of storm clouds, in this kind of uncertain economy where there are some bright lights, but there's also a lot of troubled spots on the horizon, talk a little bit about how, why is gold an important part of somebody's portfolio?
What does gold do that other types of investments don't do?
So, historically, gold has tended to perform best in periods where you have confidence in stability or prices or currencies is getting weaker.
Policy trust is getting weaker.
And we saw this in the 1970s when I was a kid.
We saw it between 2021 and 2023, where you had the gold price rising dramatically as Americans basically lost faith in the purchase power.
You know, one of the reasons for that is because gold is not correlated with other assets, it's not tied to things like corporate earnings.
You know, it's a physical asset that has to be.
Pulled out of the ground using work.
So basically, you know, basically, you know, central, even central banks now have been buying large quantities of gold for recent years.
In periods of stability and high real interest rates, you may see an underperformance of gold.
But during monetary disorder, inflationary shocks, and all that sort of thing, gold has historically served as both a hedge and a psychological safe haven or a harbor because it's not correlated with other assets.
It's uncorrelated, moves independently.
I think one thing, Peter, that a lot of people don't realize is that.
While you can inflate the money supply pretty much at will, you can't do that to gold, right?
In other words, each year by mining, there's something like one, maybe one and a half percent of flow or new gold that is added to the stock of gold.
But that's about the best you can do.
I mean, you can mine a little harder, but you can't fundamentally change the ratio of the amount of gold that there is to the new gold.
And that's why gold has been a ballast, particularly in times of inflation.
Isn't that right?
That's right.
It has unique properties.
It takes a lot of work to get it out of the ground.
Other precious metals have similar characteristics, but gold is the one that's sort of become the nucleus or the center of gravity of the global economy in terms of where precious metals are and how elements sit in valuation.
And that's globally, that's not just in the US.
Guys, I want to thank Peter Earle.
He's a representative for Gold Co., and I'm also partnered with Gold Co., and I own gold through Gold Co.
They've got a really good deal for you that you should consider.
Go to DineshGold.com.
Very simple DineshGold, my name, gold.com.
Goldco is offering my viewers and listeners a rebate, a deal in which you can get up to 10% back in free gold or silver.
So definitely worth checking out.
Go to DineshGold.com.
Peter Earl, thank you very much.
Thanks for having me.
I'm about to turn 65, and people sometimes say to me, Hey, you don't look 65, and I'm like, Shh, I'm trying to fool the public for the next few years.
Well, if you're about to turn 65 or already on Medicare, there's some important information that you need to know.
I've spent my life researching government programs, and there are very few programs more confusing than Medicare.
I'm experiencing this issue firsthand.
Choosing the right Medicare plan is essential for protecting your health and wealth, but the government and big insurance don't make it easy.
It's almost impossible to understand all of your options.
And make an informed decision.
Make one misstep, it could cost you lifetime penalties or access to the doctors you trust.
Now, this is why you owe it to yourself to call Chapter.
They are the only advisors that search every single plan nationwide and offer unbiased advice.
If you're already on the best plan, they'll tell you.
If not, they'll help you switch.
And best of all, their help is totally free.
They've helped me, and I know they can help you as well.
Click the link below and connect with my friends over at Chapter today.
Hey, I'm now on Substack.
It's kind of full circle for me.
I started out as a journalist, writing articles for National Review, The American Spectator, The Washington Post, lots of places.
After my stint in the Reagan White House, I pivoted to writing books, and that was way back in 1991.
So I've been mainly known as an author and, of course, later as a filmmaker.
But my first job, journalist, and now I'm getting back to that.
On Substack, you'll get original articles and commentary, groundbreaking investigations, exclusive access to film clips and show clips.
And guess what?
It's free.
So check it out.
Go to Dinesh D'Souza.
Biblical Archaeology and Prophecy00:00:48
Guys, I want to announce I have a new book coming out in the fall.
I'm very excited about it.
It's called The End of Time.
The subtitle is Biblical Archaeology, Prophecy, and the Last Days.
The book outlines the greatest discoveries in biblical archaeology that affirm the Bible, confirm the presence of the Jews and the Holy Land, and also support the twin foundations of Western civilization, which are Athens and Jerusalem.
The End of Time.
Has rave reviews from archaeologists, from leading pastors, and from prominent commentators.
The book published by Charisma Books is available now for pre orders on Amazon.
So I'm calling on you, early birds, to order your copies now.