35 Burst results for "Dinesh"
How Trojan Ripheus Landed in the Upper Circle of Dante's Paradiso
"But what about this guy? Rafael. This is a very minor character in the Iliad, and he has like a two line you can almost call it a walk on part. And of him Virgil says that after the sack of Troy, he says was quote foremost injustice and zealous for the right. So a really good man. And then basically Virgil says, he was killed. And that's all he says about him. And so amazingly, this guy Rafael is up here with king David, a major figure in the Bible was believed to have written all the psalms. And this seems to make no sense because, first of all, Dante's hero and guide Virgil, he's back in limbo. He's in the outer ring of inferno. What about aeneas, the founder of Troy and the great hero, the subject of the aeneid? Well, turns out he's in limbo too. So how could it be that this guy Rafael who is one of aeneas's troops and Friends? Who makes this kind of brief appearance in the aeneid, you could almost miss them if you weren't reading really closely, he has, yeah, he's a good guy. He's just guy, boom, he's dead. And here he is, elevated, you may say by Dante into the upper circles of Paradise. It's like, what's going on? Go figure. I mean, what do you make of this? And I think this is exactly why Dante puts him here because Dante's point is exactly go figure. In other words, don't think that we, puny humans who look around and see people, not from the inside, but from a partial perspective. We shouldn't be think that we have divine knowledge. We don't have divine foreknowledge. We don't have divine knowledge at all. And divine knowledge, that's superior wisdom that sees all things sort of perfectly and as they are, that might see rape in a completely different way than you do or I do or even Virgil does in the
Dinesh Continues His Dissection of NPR's '2000 Mules' Critique
"I'm continuing my discussion or perhaps dissection is the right word of Tom rice box article in NPR. A pro Trump film suggests it's data so accurate it solved a murder. That's false. Before I go on, I want to point out, look at how desperate these guys are, right? This quote solving of a murder. We didn't say we solved the murder, but nevertheless, is totally peripheral to election fraud. It's only used to show that the same geo tracking techniques that could be useful in solving a murder or helping to solve a murder are the same techniques applied to ballot trafficking. But NPR is so eager. I mean, they have so little to attack in the movie, they're like, let's take this case, which is unrelated to ballot trafficking, the Sequoia Turner case, and let us see if we can take it apart and it's granular detail. And so they sat with a certain kind of ahab like determination to try to do that and the effect is, well, let's just see what it is. Now, this is how this is the kind of false sleuth posture that reporter drives back likes to strike up. So he goes, in the episode of the podcast promoting the film, d'souza said Phillips and engelbrecht provided their analysis to the FBI, which turned the data over to the Georgia bureau of investigation, the GBI. Now, NPR contacted the GBI to fact check this claim. Great. Let's see what happens. Quote. The JBA did not receive information from true the vote that connected to the Sequoia Turner investigation said Nellie miles the GBI director of the office of public and governmental affairs. Wait, Tom drives back himself, wrote three sentences earlier that the information was not given to the GBI, but was given to the FBI. And the FBI turned over the information not necessarily with any attribution to true the vote, the FBI is going to look at the data itself. The FBI turns the data over to the GBI. So when the GBI says we didn't get information from truth to vote, true, nobody gave the GBI information directly. The information was given as noted above to the FBI. And then to get even more ridiculous, the writer, Tom dry spot goes quote, an attorney for Sakura Turner's family told NPR they had never heard of the angle bricks and Phillips analysis either. What? What would the family of the victims have to do with any of this? What would they how would they have knowledge of where this information came from? Let's say I go and give information to the FBI, which then gives it to the GBI. Why would I expect that the turnover family would be on the inside of this as the FBI and the GBI regularly sit down with victims families, by the way, we got some tips from here. Let's show you the data. You can no they don't do any of
Dinesh D’Souza Explains Partnership With Salem Media Over '2000 Mules'
"And we've never really partnered like this. Talk a little bit about the importance of your team partnering with our team for 2000 mules. Well, first of all, I think it's to the great credit of Salem as a company. I mean, it's a public company to take on a topic like this that has so many minefields and so many risks, I think is a testament to the great courage of ALM in stepping behind this. The second thing that's kind of funny, Mike that I think you'll appreciate, as you know, Salem hosts are not of one mind on this issue. There was a lot of variety of points of view. Perhaps Eric metaxas and gorka leaning more to the idea of, yeah, that was stolen election, but certainly Dennis prager and Charlie Kirk and Larry elder were not on that same page. And when Salem first suggested to me the idea of putting the hosts in the movie, I wasn't quite sure how that would work. And then I got the idea of kind of bringing them together, telling them nothing about the movie, just talking about what they thought originally, then showing them the evidence and recording their spontaneous reaction. I knew they'd have a lot of intelligent questions, and I thought, well, those are going to be the questions on the mind of the audience. And then we'll sum up by asking them their conclusions. So it worked beautifully essentially what we did is we took this Salem host and made them part of the plot of the movie.
Dinesh D’Souza: Left Tries to Block People From Seeing '2000 Mules'
"I mean, if I could find 10,000 people who are sincere Democrats and said, look, we are keeping an open mind. I would. I know tickets myself to go see the movie. So I think the left is trying to block its own side from seeing it, and there were two headlines in the last 48 hours. I think one in Daily Beast one in media, very illuminating, we've seen this movie, so you don't have to. Tell a graphing to Democrats. We don't want you to see this movie because. Actual you might be it and you might, yeah, it's come to agree with the national Souza about this. You know, you're on to something. I love the idea of renting out a theater and having every seat dedicated to somebody who is a denier or doubtful about the claim that there were election shenanigans and sincere people who doubt it, I might consider doing that. Maybe you and I can put together a deal for Tampa or maybe New York or South Carolina or Dallas or somewhere that I'm going to be in the next few weeks. We would just take a theater, because I don't know if I could be in a room full of people like
Dinesh D’Souza: Go See '2000 Mules' as a Group in Theaters
"When there's a great response at the movie theaters over a weekend like this weekend, starting tonight. Then other movie theaters are forced to take notice, they have to acknowledge the box office receipts, and then it gets distributed even in even wider distribution. So even if you've seen the movie, going to the theater this weekend dinesh is really sort of a powerful grassroots effort that every American listening to me could get involved in, I've got that right, right, about the formula about 400 theaters and what that could lead to if we have a good turnout this weekend. Absolutely. And I would say that there is so it's important to go to send a message. And go as a group. By the way, a lot of people have been writing me the last few weeks. I'd like to take my club, my book club, my reading group, my Friends, and my point is this movie was made for the theater. It's kind of a whodunnit, it's great to see it on the big screen. I mean, it's fine to see it on your computer or your TV, but the big screen with other people who are just as interested in you as you are in this issue is a whole different experience.
Dinesh D’Souza: '2000 Mules' Had to Be Released in a Novel Way
"Did you ever expect the 2000 mules would get the kind of response it's getting dinesh? Well, it was really hard to say, Mike, because I knew that the content of the movie was explosive. In other words, it was bringing a factual bearing on this issue that has haunted the American mind for two years. I mean, we were showing never before seen video. That's the official surveillance video of the states themselves. It's authenticity not even open to question. So I knew the material was radioactive. It was hot. I'd got balls of censorship that had been erected around this issue. It is the most banned topic in America. I knew the movie would have to be released in a completely novel way. So I'm delighted that, I mean, it's all jumbled right normally we release in the theater, then three months later, we release DVDs and digital downloads, but no, we first had a virtual premiere, then we have digital downloads, people are buying DVDs, and now we're going into the theater 400 theaters for showings a day, and by the way, if we do well this weekend, which I really hope we will be in even more theaters next
Dinesh Refutes NPR's Critique of '2000 Mules'
"Let's kind of go through this rather slowly because I think we need to in order to see this operation and dissect it. I'm going to dissect it almost like I'm in biology class and this is a frog. It's called investigation. So right there it's telling you, this is serious business. We're in really investigation. A pro Trump film now stop right there. A pro Trump film. Anyone who has seen 2000 meals knows that 2000 mules is not about Trump. How much time does Trump get in the film? I would say maybe one minute, maybe two, out of 90 minutes. This is different by the way than the film rigged. Dave bosse's film had a lengthy interview with Trump that was running all the way through the film. This is not like that. This is a film about stealing an election. Now, Trump was the candidate in 2020, obviously I'm going to mention Trump. I obviously also mentioned Biden, but I was very careful not to make this a film that was sort of about Trump and Trump is just quoted three or four times a single line in the film. And then, of course, that's footage from election night. So just that part of the headline is aimed at saying this film was made for Trump. It's a pro Trump film. We've got a discounted right away. All right, the pro Trump film suggests its data are so accurate. It solved the murder. That's false. First of all, I'm going to say straight out and I'm going to ask you to watch the film so you can make up your own mind. I do not say in this film the true the vote, quote, solved, a murder. In fact, I can prove it. I'm going to go to the exact statement that appears in the film. In fact, it's quoted in the article. This is what I mean when I say that they make a claim in the headline that is subtly undermined by the text of the article, but nowhere does the writer give you any clue about this. He allows you to get the false reading. In fact, it's part of his purpose that you get the follow false
Nancy Pelosi Is Hung up on Previous Democrat Wins
"You want to hear a prime example of Democrat fear panic and denial, I give you the madam speaker herself. I have absolutely no intention of the Democrats not winning the House in November. I think that in terms of our the work that this president has done and it's been a great president, I don't know about polls, but I do know about winning the races one district at a time. When we won in 18, we won 40 seats, 31 in Trump districts. They're giving us a clue. 31 in Trump districts. He wasn't on the ballot. I said, now comes the hard part, because he's now on the ballot in 2020. So we lost about a third of those seats, but the ones who won are practically ironclad. Some of them have. Different tweaks for better or worse on redistricting, but we expect them all to come back and to add to our number. I hate to be petty. I really hate to be nasty and mean spirited, but I can't wait to hear her first press conference after November 8th, 2022.
Sen. Josh Hawley Points to Biden Policies Creating High Oil Prices
"And he goes on to point out correctly that the Biden administration canceled Keystone pipeline, halted oil and gas leases and drilling permits. They have had a regulatory assault on the energy industry. And I think it's because they want to wreck America. What other explanation could there be? But thankfully, you don't need to hear me say it. We have a powerful U.S. senator who is one of the real warriors of our country. Fighting on behalf of the American people. Listen to this. And here's what your president did when he first came to office. He immediately reentered the Paris climate accord. He canceled the Keystone pipeline. He halted leasing programs in Anwar. He issued a 60 day halt on all new oil and gas leases and drilling permits on federal lands and waters that's nationwide that accounts by the way for 25% of U.S. oil production. He directed federal agencies to eliminate all supports for fossil fuels. He imposed new regulations on oil and gas and methane emissions. Those were all just in the first few days. Are you telling me that's had no effect on our energy supply?
Now Is the Time to Go See '2000 Mules' in Theatres
"Today's Friday guys and what this means is that 2000 mules is now in 400 theaters in a kind of normal, wide release for showings a day. And I hope that you will plan to go, not sometimes, but this weekend. Opening weekend is always important for a movie. It kind of gives the movie it's kind of initial momentum. It's a signal to the kind of theater community of how the movie is doing movie watchers always look to see what the opening weekend is. In fact, it was kind of almost a kind of nostrum among movie producers that you put all your energy into opening weekend. And then after opening weekend, you literally start making the next movie because that initial momentum is so critical in seeing how far this kind of movie rocket is going to go. So we want to prove that this kind of content dealing with critically important issues that are presented in a theatrical way, which is to say, in a way that is not only informative, but entertaining, that there's a big audience for this. We want to send that message to the movie community. We want to send it to independent theaters. We want to send it to the theater chains. And so you can help us to do that. So by the way, even if you've downloaded the film or you've seen it, or you have a DVD, it's a whole different experience to see it in the theater. In part, not just because of the big screen and the incredible acoustics and so on. That's all true. But also because it's kind of fun to see things in a group. I mean, it's kind of the same difference between, say, for example, doing a solitary prayer, which you can do, or going to church where you have other believers and you're sort of reinforcing each other. And this becomes an experience, not just of I am watching the movie, but rather we are watching the
Energy Secretary Granholm: Biden Policies Didn't Affect Gas Prices
"Josh hawley is a listener to the text my pillow text line just pointed out. Josh hawley was one of only 11 who didn't agree with sending $40 billion of our money, taxpayer money to Ukraine. The texture says he's great. We need more like him. Listen to senator hawley confronting this mealy mouth wishy washy, non committal energy secretary because after all, one would think that when people are looking at maybe $6 a gallon for gas, they got to deflect blame. And the record high gas prices have to be anybody's fault, but theirs listen to this exchange. And I'm sure you've seen the reporting this morning that now triple-A is projecting that gas prices will hit a national average average of $6 a gallon by the month of August, is this acceptable to you? No, it is not. And you can thank the activity of Vladimir Putin for invading Ukraine and pulling a oh, nonsense. With all due respect, madam secretary, that's utter nonsense. In January of 2021, the average gas price in my state was $2 and 7 cents. 8 months later, 8 months later, long before Vladimir Putin invaded Ukraine, that price was up over 30%, and it has been going up consistently since. What are you doing to reverse this administration's policies that are drawing down our own supply of energy in this country that are throttling oil and gas production in the United States of America? What are you doing about it? Sir, it is not administration policies that have affected supply and demand. How can you say
Sen. Josh Hawley Fights Energy Secretary Over Rising Gas Prices
"The energy secretary, Jennifer grantham, tried to claim that none of the Democrat policies have contributed to the gas price crisis we're in. None of the Biden policy she claimed had anything to do with the price of gasoline. You got to hear this. This is classic stuff. And this is why I love somebody like senator Josh hawley. A fighter, a bruiser, he's sharp elbow, takes no prisoners. He's the kind of warrior we're going to need if we have a chance of saving our country. Listen to this exchange between senator Josh hawley and the energy secretary yesterday on Capitol Hill. Coming out of COVID. So what explains the increase between January and August? Coming out of COVID coming out of COVID, there was an increase in demand because people were driving again. When there was no demand, the prices dropped. That is a basic law of economics. The price is dropping. I have to say, madam secretary with all due respect, your answers are insulting. And they are insulting to the people of Missouri who are looking for action. Now, you said two months ago, your department was on war footing. What are you doing to bring down the price of gasoline, which has been going up consistently since you took office? The price of gasoline is derived from the price of oil, the price of oil is at a $110 a barrel. What are you doing? Sir, if you could let me finish.
Are You Ready for the PHD Weight Loss Nutrition Program?
"COVID. You just want to get healthy. You want to take off ten, 20, 40, 50 pounds, my son, Brian said, dad, how have you been losing this weight? I said it's called PhD weight loss and nutrition. He said, well, I need to lose about 2021 pounds. Yep, he hit his goal last week. 21 pounds of weight loss for my oldest son. This is an extraordinary program. And you got to be ready to make the commitment. You're never hungry? I had a nice turkey burger last night with some mozzarella cheese. I had cauliflower slices instead of buns because you don't eat bread or buns. Sometimes I feel like a big, I feel like a big quarter pounder with cheese. I get the quarter pounder with cheese and I go get the cauliflower slices and put the quarter powdered cheese between those two slices and they taste great and that's all approved. I mean, I could go all day long on the food to eat. I had the PhD oatmeal this morning with some half and half. Apple cinnamon oatmeal. Scrambled eggs, here's what it starts with the phone call to make to book your consultation. Here's their number. 8 6 four two 5 two 49 25. You could write it down 8 6 four two 5 two 49 25 or just go online, their website is my PhD weight
Geo Tracking and the 'Gay Bathhouse' Argument
"I'm continuing a kind of highlight or analysis of my conversation with Philip bump in The Washington Post. And he disputes the validity or at least precision and the accuracy of geo tracking based upon an expert that he interviewed one guy who said, well, it's only accurate to about 30 feet. Well, that's not true. But let's say it is true. I don't think it changes our conclusions at all. For the simple reason that you've got a Dropbox. And you've got a mule within 30 feet, remember a human body is 5 or 6 feet. So 30 feet puts you basically within three or four human lengths of the Dropbox. You're in that vicinity. You're in that geofence or circle. Okay. And if it was only one Dropbox, you could make you could say, well, wait a minute. Maybe the guy was stopped to eat some popcorn. Or was reaching for his wallet? It happened to stop within that radius, but this is why true the votes high bar and by the high bar I mean, ten or more drop boxes. Totally settles the issue, because quite frankly, if you're within 30 feet of ten or more dropboxes, obviously you are going to those drop boxes to do what? Well, there's only one thing you can do. So you remember these aren't post boxes. You can't be writing a letter to your best friend from college. These drop boxes have one purpose. And that is to put in mail in ballots. They're ballot dropboxes. So the only reason to go to them is to dump ballots. So in fact, there's a guy who made a comment on social media. He goes, dinesh, you know, he goes, listen, he goes, what if I were to show that your phone was within 30 feet of a bunch of gay bath houses? Would you be okay with me saying that your regular frequenter of gay bathhouses dinesh and that I have proof that you that you that you did that? And I replied in a kind of a quote tweet and I say, hey, pal, listen. If you can find my phone within 30 feet of let's say ten or more gay bath houses in the period of let's say two weeks, yeah, you can reasonably conclude that I'm a regular customer. Why else would I be within the close vanity vicinity of not one not two? Not three, but ten or more bathhouses. So yes, use your own common sense and draw your own
Dinesh Assesses Philip Bump's So-Called 'Gaps' in '2000 Mules'
"I'm continuing my discussion of the dialog I had with Philip bump up The Washington Post or lengthy article several thousand words long. And bump likes to focus, he tried to, well, it seemed like it initially the whole interview was going to be about the bike guy. And he says, you can not see the bike guy putting in multiple ballots. And I say, first of all, the fact that you can't see it. And what I mean by that is you're sitting in your armchair and you're looking at a screen and you can't tell based on that, how many ballots are going, I say it doesn't follow the true the vote investigators can't tell. Why? Because they're going to be looking at this footage not only much more closely with the kind of magnifying glass, so to speak. But they're also looking at it with trained eyes. They're able to estimate the width of the ballots going in, which is not to say that they know the exact number, but they can tell the difference between around one or two ballots, 5 or 6 ballots, ten or 12 ballots, because it creates a different kind of width as you start sticking this little sheaf of ballots in there. Now, I agree for myself, I can't tell with the bike guy alone. How many ballots he's putting in. But that's not why we featured him that particular clip is aimed at showing him taking the photo. So what happens is let's remember we're dealing here by the way not with well taken surveillance footage. We're dealing with grainy footage, we're dealing with cameras that aren't always aimed at the right place. So what we have to do is say, well, look at this particular image and look at this for because the guy happened to drop ballots on the ground. You can obviously see that this guy has multiple ballots. It might have been more difficult to see how do you smoothly slip them in, but because he dropped a bunch, it's pretty obvious. There's more than one ballot. In other cases, you can clearly see multiple ballots going in. In this bike guy case, it was interesting because he came back to take the photo. That was a significant to that, but see what Philip bump won. So he wants every image decided to fly every definition. So we have the bike. Yeah, okay, we see him taking pictures. Where's the multiple ballots in that photo? Where's the multiple ballots in that video? So, so what I say to him is I say, listen, you know, if you don't have context, and you aren't able to see the totality of the picture, it's always easy to misrepresent things. I gave him the example of in the rittenhouse case, a detective. With a straight face testified that the antifa thugs weren't chasing rittenhouse. They were just running in the same direction. And of course, once you look at the video and you look at the video from different angles, it becomes obvious to the jury now, they're chasing rittenhouse. And that's the point I want to make is once you see the movie and you see not a video or an image but you see the videos and you put them together and you combine them with the geo tracking evidence, well, then that settles the
'2000 Mules' Will Be Shown in 400 Movie Theaters This Weekend
"What if 2000 mules being shown this weekend in over 400 theaters became the number one movie in America? You almost have an obligation to go see it. Because the movie is already a huge hit, it's already grossed well over $10 million. Online downloads, DVDs that are being ordered. And this weekend, there it will be shown in over 400 movie theaters around the country. Now, the bottom line is, and here's what dinesh said, we're going to talk to dinesh d'souza, the driving force, the creative force behind 2000 mules on tomorrow's show. But it's really kind of an official opening this weekend in movie theaters. And it's very important that the movie does well. Because his dinesh said, if the movie does well in theaters this weekend, then we'll be in even more theaters next weekend. And incidentally, dinesh points out, that wasn't even the movie makers initiative. A bunch of movie theaters noticed that when they did they rented out some theaters on May 2nd and May 4th, they did so well that they were like, hey, we want the movie in our theater.
Dinesh Reviews His Exchange in the Washington Post With Philip Bump
"I want to commend Philip bump of The Washington Post. He's their national correspondent. And he has with me a lengthy Q&A dialog, which he has printed almost verbatim. There are some minor edits, but I don't have no quarrel with the way that the interview is presented. And it's very long. I don't know. It looks like 7 or 8000 words. It was about 23 pages when I printed it out and transcript. And one of these guys who can't read on the computer, I kind of have to print it out. Debbie is like, you're so old school. I'm like, yeah, I am old school. I kind of have neat pieces of paper. And sometimes I need a little bit of a pen or a highlighter. And what I find funny about the interview, by the way, is that and I've never really seen this, not just in The Washington Post, but in any newspaper that Philip bump highlights the interview as it is published. He has yellow highlights running through the interview. And it's almost as if he's kind of like saying only read the highlighted parts, which I think are the parts where he thinks he came out well. Now, I think it's interesting because the highlights are obviously a relatively small part of the overall interview. And I think maybe that's a sign that Philip bump thought that he got the better of me only in these yellow sections. But you shouldn't pay attention to that. You should read the whole thing. I mean, look, Philip bump has every right to highlight, if you will, and quite honestly, what I'm going to do is I'm going to give you my own highlights now. Verbal highlights, if you will, of the same of the same interview. And what I want to get at is I want to expose how difficult it is for these guys to poke holes in the film. And the difficulty that they have is in attacking the totality of the film. It's kind of like if you're a defense attorney and you're looking at a case that's been presented to you with which has many elements. And so what you try to do is you try to pretend that there's only one part of the case. Oh, there's only one element and you go after that relentlessly, as if to say that if you were able to debunk that, somehow your debunking the case as a
'2000 Mules' Hits 400 Theatres This Weekend!
"The documentary 2000 meals goes into theaters, 400 theaters this weekend, starting, well, there are a few early shows. Even on Thursday, evening this evening. But it really begins four shows a day tomorrow, which is Friday. And then it continues, and it'll run pretty much as long as people are seeing it. In fact, if we do really well in the theater, we might even expand to more theaters the following week. So it's important for us to do well, and this is a great way to see the movie. In fact, I make these movies for the theater. It was heartbreaking to me. With the last one, Trump card, where I was all set to go and a thousand theaters. In fact, and then COVID, theater shut down, all these mask requirements. And so I kind of pull the movie, which was, as I say, very hard to do. But with this one, what's so cool is we had done a very limited theatrical release. We essentially rented the theaters out may 2nd, may 4th, and we did so well that the independent theater is a lot of them came to us and were like, hey, we'd love to have this movie in the theater in a normal release. So this is all kind of jumbled because it violates every kind of normal rule for releasing a movie, normally you go out in the theater. You try to hang in there for two, three, maybe four weeks, then there's a kind of mandatory gap, then you release the movie for digital download. And streaming, and then later you try to get some sort of a deal with an epic or Netflix. So that's the traditional formula. Well, that formula I kind of door up and throughout the window. For a variety of reasons. One of which is that this is the first film I've released in a real age of censorship, where we're blocked and all the normal things that we used
"dinesh" Discussed on The Dinesh D'Souza Podcast
"Danesh iza got moral is God beyond good and evil. Thank you. Very simple and yet in some ways difficult question. Which has two parts kind of related to each other. And the first one is, is God moral, which I understand to mean not does God do evil things. Does God act in an immoral way? I don't think that's what the question is. It's rather does God himself subscribe to a kind of code of morality. And can that code of morality be used to, in a sense, evaluate God and say, in effect, yeah, God acted justly here. God acted unjustly there. Is it possible for God to act unjustly at all? Can God uses omnipotence, for example, to treat someone unfairly, let's say, just say take someone, for example, who has lived a just life and need to treat them badly or condemn them to their nation, even if they repent, even if they accept God. The second part of the question which picks up on that is as God beyond good and evil and the concept of being beyond good and evil is made famous by the philosopher Nietzsche, who has a book titled beyond good and evil. And when Nietzsche means by this is that we, as humans, do not need to be bound by any kind of an external moral code. This is not to say Nietzsche saying we don't need to tell the truth or we don't need to be kind to others, but Nietzsche is saying, we don't need to do those things because they're in the ten commandments or because there is some system of morality that has been inherited by us or given to us or even taught to us. Nietzsche is really point is that morality is something that we forge for ourselves. And in fact, Nietzsche envisions a different kind of morality than the one that he was raised with, which was traditionally Lutheran. Well, let's come back to God because I think the problem here is not seeing that a moral code, which is supplied to us, let's say in the ten commandments, is supplied to us by God for human beings. Why? Because as human beings, we have choices. And we have choices to do good, and we have choices to do evil. And on nature is such that we are pulled in both directions. So in other words, there's a little part of us that wants to do the right thing. Why? Because we have a conscience. And there's another part of us that wants to do the wrong thing. Why? Because it seems to promise some benefits on pleasure and some gain. Yeah, if I, if I steal, I'll be better off. I'll finally be a millionaire. I've always wanted to be a millionaire. Now, the important thing to realize is that God's nature is not the same as ours. And therefore, God is not pulled into directions. God has only pulled in one direction and in fact, all that is good, not only comes from God, but is God. Now this is something that takes a moment of reflection and I think the way to clarify this point is to think put aside for a moment the Christian God and think of the ancient Greeks. In the ancient Greeks, they had a number of gods and goddesses and let's focus here on the goddess Aphrodite. Now, Aphrodite represented love, represented also sexual desire. And some people might ask the question as mirroring this question, I did Aphrodite field sexual desire, was Aphrodite in a sense, quote, turned on. And the Greeks would have found this incomprehensible, their point isn't that Aphrodite has those attributes or has those qualities. Their point is that Aphrodite is love. So Aphrodite is not separated from love and she could either feel love or she can feel hate. No, Aphrodite has only one defining quality that makes Aphrodite Aphrodite and that is love itself. So I think the way to apply this analogy or insight, if you will, to God, is that God is justice. God is goodness. God is love. It's not that there's love, which is external to God and God possesses it in the same way that I have a possession or an attribute that is external to me. So God's nature is such that that morality and by morality here, I mean the positive attributes of morality, these are defining features of God. And in fact, there are opposite, which is evil or sin, or vice, those result from the absence of God. In other words, those are not things that God can be, those are things that occur when God is not there. And so evil results by turning our face away from God. Before I get to my last question, I do want to make an announcement, which is that.
"dinesh" Discussed on The Dinesh D'Souza Podcast
"I was wondering if you could explain who Elon Musk is and why he's been so relevant in the news today. Well, I think with regard to Elon Musk and I'm not going to take this question in terms of like what's the life story of Elon Musk, but rather what is the significance of Musk? What drives him what's he up to? Well, he is primarily an entrepreneur. And an innovator. He said something very interesting, Debbie and I were talking about it over a coffee this morning. He said, you probably haven't seen a whole lot of ads for Tesla. He goes, that's because I don't really put a lot of money into advertising. I don't think he was saying he doesn't put any, but his point is, think about car companies, the marketing budget, these kind of glamorous ads, the fast moving car, going through these mountainous cliffs. This is a, this is a big part of the sales pitch of most companies. And Elon Musk was like, I don't have to do that. His point is, I put it into the product. I make a really good product and then I trust the American people, which is to say I trust the consumers to recognize that I've put my investment in making good stuff and they're gonna come and go for it. And I was actually joking with Debbie. I'm like, well, this is kind of our approach in our movies. Yeah, we do marketing and promotion, but not that much. And sometimes we'll release a movie, this movie, for example, you probably haven't seen any TV ads for it, 'cause we decided we're not gonna do it. We're gonna put our efforts into making a really good movie. People are gonna see it. It's power. It's gonna be obvious and it's gonna make people talk about it, and that'll be our marketing. That's how marketing budget right there. Now, back to Elon Musk, inventor is an innovators are not really the same thing. The inventor sometimes is the guy who comes up with a new invention, but very often the inventor doesn't know what to do with it. They're not necessarily the person who knows how to adapt that invention in such a way that it benefits and helps the lives of people because that's what products are, new products new innovations are new ways of doing things new ways of driving, new ways of heating or cooling your house, new gadgets are gonna make your life easier, a phone that takes photos, but also allows you to send texts and watch movies and do all kinds of things. So these are innovations. The big innovation interestingly at Amazon wasn't the idea of selling products over the Internet that Amazon was hardly the first to do that. One of the things that really put Amazon into its own orbit was Amazon Prime. And the innovation there was essentially announcing in advance that if you pay a certain fixed fees, 79, $89 a year, will deliver whatever you order to you in two days. And at that time, Bezos had no way to do that. But he realized that if he got $79 from tens of millions of people, he would have a big reservoir of money and he could Bill warehouses around the country and he could in fact deliver on his promise, which he couldn't deliver on when he made the promise and required the success of the idea in order to carry it out. Now, Elon Musk had an interesting graph that he posted on social media about his own place on the political spectrum. And this is interesting not just for what it says about Elon Musk but about the country. So in the graph, you kind of have the left and the right at two ends of a line and in the middle you have the center. And the way it must shows it is these shows 2008, 2012 and 2021, and the conservative is on the right side of the spectrum, but hasn't moved. The conservatives in the same place in 2008 as in 12 as in 21. And I think that's actually a pretty accurate description. If I think of my own politics at the time, Obama first ran for office. In fact, I'd go further back. My own politics going back to the 90s, even the late 80s, haven't changed significantly now the landscape has changed, but Elon Musk's point is that the conservative ideology, the place on the spectrum is essentially been motionless. Now, Musk says, what has happened is that the left, which was kind of equidistant from the center, has moved further left. This was already happening in 2012, but it's happened dramatically in 2021. The left is almost unrecognizable to the old left. The left of 2008 would be like, wow, wait a minute, open borders. Wait a minute. This whole idea that you can't tell the difference between a man and a woman. Wait a minute. So the wait a minute, more spending is actually the solution to inflation. So Elon Musk's point is that although he Elon Musk was in 2008, he says he actually voted for Obama. He put himself then slightly left of center in 2008, but he goes what happened is that by 2012, the center was being pulled toward the left because the leftists are moving further out and so suddenly Elon Musk's own position is moving, not because he's changing, but because the line under him is moving. And then he says what's really happened today is the center itself has been yanked further to the left by the Democrats moving to the far extreme and as a result, he Elon Musk, although again, in the same position as he was in 2008, is now right of center. So Elon Musk, I think happily acknowledges he's right of center. In fact, here's what he says. Today's Democratic Party has been hijacked by extremists. Of course, a lot of people are like indignant about this and a lot of analyses of the polarization of our society, but it seems to me that Elon Musk here is stating the plane.
"dinesh" Discussed on The Dinesh D'Souza Podcast
"Balance called 802 four 6 8 7 51 that's 802 four 6 8 7 51 or go to balance of nature dot com and use discount code balance. Our next question is a video question. International's try again, God bless you and thank you for answering all my questions. I really appreciate it. Something that popped in my head today, I'm listening to the personal memoirs of Ulysses S. Grant, huge book. And something popped in my head. I remember that Larry elder said that he thought that the reason there wasn't a Civil War in England over the Emancipation of slaves was because the state actually gave reparations to the slave owner. To free the slave. I was curious if you think that this proposition was ever brought forth to the south if they would have accepted it, or if it was just something that was never on the table that they would have never accepted. I'd love to hear what you think. And I really, I'm getting a lot of respect for Ulysses S. Grant and all the union troops. They had to fight like hell to save our country. God bless you and thank you for all you do. I'm fascinating question that delves into history and the difference between the experience of America and the experience of Great Britain. Now it is true that when you had Emancipation in Britain, it was, well, it was compensated Emancipation, which meant you couldn't have slaves anymore, but the British government would in a sense pay you the value of your quote property. The free you of it, and so there was. I don't think was unjust in the case of Great Britain for the simple reason that British law classified slaves as property. So in that respect, prior to Emancipation, it was legal to own slaves. And by the way, there were a lot of slaves, also in the British Empire. They weren't that many slaves in Britain, not so this is an important difference between the British experience and the American that the economy of the south in the United States was heavily dependent. In fact, was defined by slavery, cotton was the predominant crop across the Deep South. But even in the rest of the south, there were slaves that were used in domestic labor onto a tobacco plantations, and so on. So the economy of the south is almost inconceivable without slavery. This was not true of Great Britain. And so I think the reason that there wasn't a Civil War in Britain is because the abolition of slavery in Great Britain was not as big a deal. It didn't have the same cataclysmic effect. And the slavery slave owners were fewer in number. They were compensated. They went back to industry, do other things. And so that transition was relatively peaceful. Let's turn to America for a second. It should not be thought that there was a uniform defense of slavery in the south. Because if you go back to the time of the American Revolution, there were many people in the south who opposed slavery. In fact, read, even though Jefferson himself has some denunciations of slavery, Jefferson, by the way, as you mentioned, did support Emancipation, abolition, if you will, but he thought it would come peacefully, and I think he would have supported a compensated Emancipation. There were a hundred antislavery societies in the south. In the late 18th century. In other words, around the time of the founding and the aftermath of the many people in the south, in fact, emancipated their own slaves with no compensation. They just let him go. They had developed a relationship with their slaves, and it was something like you can go free after 20 years of service or, you know what, your children when they reach a certain age are going to be going to be free. So this was going on already beforehand. Now, Lincoln of all people. And this was a view that he held not only before the Civil War, but even after the Civil War began. Was looking for some peaceful way to he thought that it would be bad for blacks to stay in America because he thought bad for blacks and also bad for race relations in America. Lincoln, I think, was pessimistic about how this would all play out. And we can look back and go, well, Lincoln, your views were naive, but looking at the state of race relations in the country even today the way in which it continues to be a wedge issue the way in which even as overt examples of racism have diminished, nevertheless, the ideology, the racial ideology, continues to be pushed by the Democratic Party in a very toxic way. I think it would be hasty to say that some of Jefferson and Lincoln's forebodings about this issue have completely vanished. Now, the question at its heart is what if you were to go to the democratic southern leaders in the years prior to 1860 and say, hey, listen, how about if.
"dinesh" Discussed on The Dinesh D'Souza Podcast
"Our next question is a video question. International's try again, God bless you and thank you for answering all my questions. I really appreciate it. Something that popped in my head today, I'm listening to the personal memoirs of Ulysses S. Grant, huge book. And something popped in my head. I remember that Larry elder said that he thought that the reason there wasn't a Civil War in England over the Emancipation of slaves was because the state actually gave reparations to the slave owner. To free the slave. I was curious if you think that this proposition was ever brought forth to the south if they would have accepted it, or if it was just something that was never on the table that they would have never accepted. I'd love to hear what you think. And I really, I'm getting a lot of respect for Ulysses S. Grant and all the union troops. They had to fight like hell to save our country. God bless you and thank you for all you do. I'm fascinating question that delves into history and the difference between the experience of America and the experience of Great Britain. Now it is true that when you had Emancipation in Britain, it was, well, it was compensated Emancipation, which meant you couldn't have slaves anymore, but the British government would in a sense pay you the value of your quote property. The free you of it, and so there was. I don't think was unjust in the case of Great Britain for the simple reason that British law classified slaves as property. So in that respect, prior to Emancipation, it was legal to own slaves. And by the way, there were a lot of slaves, also in the British Empire. They weren't that many slaves in Britain, not so this is an important difference between the British experience and the American that the economy of the south in the United States was heavily dependent. In fact, was defined by slavery, cotton was the predominant crop across the Deep South. But even in the rest of the south, there were slaves that were used in domestic labor onto a tobacco plantations, and so on. So the economy of the south is almost inconceivable without slavery. This was not true of Great Britain. And so I think the reason that there wasn't a Civil War in Britain is because the abolition of slavery in Great Britain was not as big a deal.
"dinesh" Discussed on The Dinesh D'Souza Podcast
"Hi, dinesh. This is Laura. One of the themes in 2000 mules is the issue of vote harvesting. Is vote harvesting legal or illegal according to the laws of each state. Thank you. This is a very important question. In fact, it is the heart of the objection to the movie made by Philip bump of The Washington Post. Essentially what Philip bump says is that this is a movie that shows and demonstrates beyond a reasonable doubt, massive harvesting. And he goes, yeah, but harvesting is not always illegal. It's allowed in a whole bunch of places. And so what's the big deal really? Maybe in some cases it wasn't allowed in certain ways, but you're not going to cancel out a vote because the mode of its delivery, the harvesting was somehow out of sync with the rules. Are you? Now, this is, this is something we need to drill into because these laws are made at the state level, and they vary. So let me say, this is what boat harvesting is. Vote harvesting is giving you a ballot to someone else. This is we're talking obviously about absentee or mail in ballots. You don't go deliver the ballot yourself. You give it to someone else and say you would do it. Now, there are about 27 states that allow some form of vote harvesting, but in most of these states the form allowed is very limited, very specified. So let's start with the most liberal vote harvesting laws. These are places like California and Hawaii. And the idea here is you can give your ballot to anyone. California allows you to ask any Tom dick or Harry, so to speak to return your ballot. And that is permitted. Now, most states don't do that, even states that allow vote harvesting normally limit who you can give your ballot to. So let's take, for example, the state of Georgia. In the state of Georgia, you are permitted to give you a ballot only to a family member, or if you are in a confined or facility, if you're in a nursing home, you can give it to a caregiver. And that's it. No one else. So this show and then some states prohibit vote harvesting altogether. You have to be the one who returns your own ballot. If you want to send in your ballot, it's got to be you that brings it in person or you take it to the mail and Dropbox. No one can do it for you. But, and this is the point that Philip bump misses completely. There is a critical distinction, which is in the movie. Now by in fairness, when he wrote this in The Washington Post, he hadn't seen the movie. So I actually contacted him and said, I like to send you the movie. He's like, please send it to me to Nash. I'm trying to organize a debate with this guy. In fact, you sort of challenged me to a debate and I'm I accept. I accept. So I'm going to go to Filip bump and see if we can set up a big debate in some places like Atlanta or Phoenix. In other words, these are places covered in the movie. But the distinction I'm talking about is between vote harvesting and paid ballot trafficking. Now here's my point. While in California, it is legal to give you a ballot to somebody else and have them return it in no state in the country. Is it legal to pay someone? Whether a mule or someone else to return a ballot. Why? Because it immediately introduces the issue of bribery. Your money changing hands and the election process. And so let's say I live in California with the most liberal vote harvesting laws and I say, you know, Tom, you go return my vote. That's allowed. What if I say Tom? I'll give you $50 if you take my vote and go drop it off. That is a fraudulent ballot that must not be counted. That is an illegal practice indulgent by me, and by Tom. And it makes the ballot flat out illegal. This is something that Philip bump seems to have no understanding of. So the point I want to make is that the practices depicted in the movie, in which you have paid mules. Now how do we know they're paid? We know in really two separate ways. The first is the true the vote was approached by whistleblowers, whistle lowers in Arizona, whistleblowers in Georgia, and the whistleblowers kind of unfurled the operation. They said, listen, I got paid. I dropped off ballots. I was paid $10 a ballot. I dropped off a whole bunch of ballots, so this is the amount of money I made. Well, were you the only guy doing it? Are you kidding me? No, I was part of a network. Tons of people were doing it. So this is what alerted through the vote that they needed to look further at this. So we know from the whistleblower that this is what was going on. And of course, in the movie we have an interview with the mule, who specifically talks about being a mule, kind of from the horse's mouth so to speak. And so the fact that this is a paid operation is known in that way. Well, here's the second way, also depicted in the movie, and that is you see the meals and they are taking photos. Now, this is really interesting. They're not taking, by the way, selfies, not one of those, you know, let me take a photo of myself with my I voted sticker. No, it's not that at all. You have a mule, is looking left and right, no one's looking at me. Okay, fine. I'm gonna put the ballots in. Oh wait, I need to take a photo. You take a camera out and they record, they take a picture of the ballots being put in the box. Why? Because that's evidently how they get paid. They've got to show I was there. I did the job. Here I'm performing the tasks. Now I need my money. So there is no question. And by the way, there's a third way all that law enforcement has to do is step in, interview these meals, how much were you paid? The whole idea that you could have thousands of meals in a nonprofit app is just preposterous. It beggars beliefs. So bottom line we're dealing with completely illegal practices, not mere harvesting, but paid ballot trafficking that is illegal in every single state. Well, it's.
"dinesh" Discussed on The Dinesh D'Souza Podcast
"Not a little in all states or situations. Today, a special Q&A episode in which I'm going to take an answer, a bunch of very interesting questions. How do you relate a movie in an age of censorship? Why don't you call your movie a documentary? Why are you calling it a movie? Seems to imply it's fiction. How did Elon Musk become Elon Musk? Should America have paid compensation to its slave owners? Would that have saved us a whole bunch of trouble, has great Great Britain did, is God moral. Have you ever thought of going back to your home country? This is the dinesh d'souza show. America needs this voice. The times are crazy, and a time of confusion, division, and lies. We need a brave voice of reason to understanding and truth. This is the dinesh d'souza podcast. Wow guys, the movie is out. We are right in the throes of the premiere week. In fact, we've completed the theatrical showings Monday and Wednesday and response has been electric. It's been fantastic. And so as of right now, you can't go see the movie in theaters because the theatrical is the limited theatrical. It was over for now. Now the demand has been so great that what considering a later theatrical in which for a day, maybe on a weekend, we'll get a whole bunch of theaters and sort of do it again, but we have to organize that through some of the theater companies. So we're going to work on that, get back to you. But for now, if you haven't already, sign up for the virtual premiere, it's coming up. On Saturday, may 7th. And 8 p.m. eastern, and it's going to be just a marvelous fantastic same price as a movie ticket. And it's going to be out of a spectacular studio in Vegas. I mean, he's going to sing, play the movie, so it includes the movie screening, of course, and followed by a live Q&A with some of the prominent Salem media hosts who are in the movie, as well as Catherine engelbrecht and Greg Phillips with the two principles of the intelligence election intelligence organization called true the vote. So this all begins 8 p.m. eastern on Saturday, may 7th. So sign up, by the way, you can also order DVDs and then get ready for the digital download of the movie, which is going to come right after that. I'll talk more about that. The website is 2000 mules dot com. Now, here's a question I want to read. It can kind of threw my website. Hello, dinesh, I want to thank you your true hero. I'm looking forward to seeing 2000 meals, but would like to make a suggestion. I noticed in your video you mentioned the quote movie trailer. I'd like to suggest you call it a documentary using the term movie suggest to me it might be more like a fictional story rather than reality. We all know that movies generally come from Hollywood, know their level of credibility in today's landscape is zero. So I think there's an interesting point here and I agree with it, of course. Now true colloquially I used the film, the movie. It really is a documentary, and I mean that in a deeper sense, it's a documentary in that my first film with just 2016 Obama's America wasn't a documentary style. It was a journey to Hawaii and Indonesia and Kenya to sort of discover the true Obama. And then in my other movies, starting with America, imagine a world with powder, but continuing Hillary's America death of a nation Trump card. There was a sort of larger movement into history, a reenactment, typically those movies would end with a kind of inspirational feeling. Some people would say to me that it's amazing at the end of your movies, I see everyone in the theater get up and applaud and I've never seen that happen in a movie and it's happened in several of my movies, but but I'm not seeing that with this movie and rightly so. In fact, typically in the theater when the movie is over, there's like a dead silence. People sort of digesting the implications of what they've of what they've seen. And moreover, this film goes back to the documentary style of the original Obama movie. So it doesn't have reenactments of that sense. It has, it doesn't have the kind of inspirational clothes because what is needed at the end of this movie is critical reflection and a strategy for a strategy for moving forward. Now, this is not to say that the movie doesn't have any reenactments in the opening scene, you will see a reenactment. It's in fact a reenactment of the mule. Debbie and I actually got a call from a prominent actor or a day or two ago and he was like, he actually what he had a movies in advance screening of the movie I sometimes media people do. And he was totally blown away, but he's like dinesh. He goes, you have all these unbelievable, authentic, official surveillance videos on the movie that are going to make people jump out of their seats. He goes, but when you do this reenactment, you don't have a big sign that says reenactment. So I wonder if everybody can see that there's a difference between your reenactment, which is obviously a production and the authentic mule videos played in the but he's like maybe you should put a big reenactment sign and of course I told him well it's too late to do that, but moreover, and he's like, well, I just don't want the left and he goes, there's nothing they can say, but this is a movie that they're going to have a real difficult time fighting again, coming up with something. So they're going to jump on stupid stuff, including this. Acting as if there's no distinction between a reenactment and the replay of video up on video upon video upon video. To me there are three things in this movie that I'm going to be really interested to watch. The first is the reaction of the authorities because the movie sets up very clearly what the next step needs to be, and that is pay a visit to the mules, who paid you who set this up, organize this. So the authorities have their work cut out for them number two. The reaction from the left, which we're beginning to see Philip bump in The Washington Post and some others. This is going to be great. I'm looking forward to it. I don't think this is a movie, the left can ignore. They're going to have to deal with it. But three, the reaction from the GOP. What is the Republican Party, especially the establishment wing of the Republican Party? Some of the very same people who said it's time to forget it's time to move on..
"dinesh" Discussed on The Dinesh D'Souza Podcast
"The film 2000 meals is now out, it opened last night, packed theaters around the country. And it's fascinating to get people's reaction to the movie. By the way, the movie was shown in Debbie's what do you call it your hometown, your the place that she grew up, which is the Rio Grande valley in Texas and Debbie's mom was at the theater. In fact, she sent us a photo. She's, I think she got that 30 minutes before everyone else. But she was it was a first outing Debbie goes in two years. This is a very social person. And she's really been affected by COVID. I mean, this idea that you have to be cooped up. Because you are in a vulnerable category. So she was really excited to get out. In fact, what's kind of funny is that Debbie is like, how did you enjoy the movie? And she's like, well, I don't want to spoil it for you. That means like, we have watched this movie, at least a hundred times each. David dinesh and I, we know the ending. You're not spoiling it for us. Don't worry about that. But that's the way it is, but you know what I find interesting is with my earlier movies. Going back to the Obama movie, people would often tell me, hey, dinesh your movies are kind of unique because I've never seen at the end of a movie. The whole crowd or most of the crowd get up and applaud. Never seen that in the theater and it happens consistently with your movies, you know, 2016 Obama's America happens with America, death of a nation, Trump card, and so on. But I didn't think that would happen with this movie and it turns out that my instinct is right because when we got some reports, particularly from the Rio Grande valley theaters, they said that after the movie ended, the credits rolled, people just sat there. They were like dead silent. They were sort of taking it in. And by the way, I think this is the emotionally correct response. Because this is not a movie that you sort of ra ra about, you want to ponder the full implications of what the movie shows. And it apparently that's what people are doing. That's exactly. I mean, if someone who creates these things, that's the effect I'm going for here because you want people to realize that this is unprecedented. We have never had something like this in American history. You had a hint of it and what happened in 1960 in Cook County, Illinois, but we are talking about something in a completely different dimension. And so the movie will show again tomorrow Wednesday night. And by the way, we're having our red carpet premiere that night at Mar-a-Lago. It's going to be a glittering event. We're going to release some clips and photos and things like that after the event. If you missed the movie in the theater or the tickets are sold out, don't worry. I would urge you to sign up for the virtual premiere. The virtual premiere is on Saturday. May 7th, 8 p.m. eastern. It's live. It's out of an event, beautiful theater in Las Vegas, Debbie and I will be there, so we'll Catherine engelbrecht and Greg Phillips of true the vote. So will some of the Salem hosts who's coming metaxas is coming. Larry elder is coming. I think gorka may be coming in any event. We're all gonna be there. Debbie's gonna sing live, then we play the movie, so you'll never again. That means always saying with our singing, never got it. I'm not gonna do a public performance again, but then we prevail upon her and she kind of agrees. So about getting her is actually very difficult to do. You think that, you know, I have some influence, you know? Yeah, Debbie actually initially was even reluctant to go to these things because of her germaphobia and even when we played the movie and then live Q&A at the end and you know the good thing about it is it's 20 bucks. It's the same price as a movie ticket..
"dinesh" Discussed on The Dinesh D'Souza Podcast
"So again, if women want to express themselves through the democratic process, they want to secure their rights to an abortion, they can do that. But, of course, Alito knows there are a lot of women who are pro life. In fact, if you look at the country in general, the country is sort of in the middle on this. It is true that a majority of people don't want abortion outlawed across the board, but an equally decisive majority of people don't want abortion, permitted across the board. And so this overturning of roe, this affirmation of the Mississippi law, but also other state laws, which can be either less severe or even more severe than the Mississippi law. This is a way of achieving the exactly what the constitution and vision, the constitution and vision that there are certain questions on which you're not going to get more agreement in which the American people are sort of in the middle and so sure enough you're going to get all types of laws. By the way, this is what they do in Western Europe. The reason abortion is not been a contentious issue is because they had this kind of debate. It wasn't just the court proclaiming on high settling the issue for the whole country. No. The people look at it. The laws tend to reflect a certain kind of middle position that happens to coincide with the way that the Germans or the English or the French think about it. And by the way, American attitudes on abortion are more conservative than those of Europe, even while American laws, the law in this sense being roe V wade are more radical. So this is a very hopeful development. We'll see how it all plays out, but quite apart from the leak, abominable in itself, I'm absolutely thrilled to see that roe versus wade, it's days. It seemed at one point that it was there, indestructible, it would probably exist through my lifetime. There seemed no realistic prospect of knocking it down, but what seemed impossible has now become not only possible, but it seems a pending reality. Some of us wish we could rewind the clock when it comes to our health. You know, exercising, climbing stairs, all the things young people take for granted is something that doesn't have to stop just because you age. Well, neither do you have to just endure the normal aging aches and pains. Now there's a 100% drug free solution..
"dinesh" Discussed on The Dinesh D'Souza Podcast
"I can change Texas's law, but you can. She's talking to left wing activists, and everyone else who may own may not like it can go out there and be lobbying forces and changing laws that you don't like. So there's no question that Sotomayor wants to see this kind of outside agitation. And it's pretty clear that this is in fact the motive of the leak, the motive of the leak is to generate a public outcry and in fact a public outcry to some degree is ensuing. You basically you've got some people who are like, let me go find my pink hat from the old days. Let me put it back on. I'm gonna go out and start yelling and screaming at the court. Now conservatives in general get a little freaked out when this guy thing happens. Oh, they're showing up at the court. We shouldn't freak out. I mean, we actually should not dignify the hysterics of the left. Let them yell, let them scream. Watch their tantrums with unruffled moral calm and quite honestly, in my case, a small measure of detached amusement because, I mean, let's not minimize what they're trying to do. I mean, they're creating a kind of insurrection. In fact, this is worse than January 6th in the sense that in January 6th, they weren't really trying to overthrow the government. No, but what these guys are trying to do quite honestly is overthrow the court. They're willing to destroy the independence of a judiciary. They're willing to bring what they see as activists, pressure onto the court, potentially even to unleash an orgy of civic or civil unrest or strife. And so this is very, very bad stuff. And the government is, by the way, not unaware of this, I say this because I actually see a picture here. Today on social media, barricades are going up around the Supreme Court building, which means they know they're going to be able to try to push their way in. Now, what's interesting to me is when you were talking about pushing your way in the court is I think back to the January 6th defendants. Oh, they're in an unauthorized public building. They were parading in a place or not supposed to be. Lock them up for a year, lock it up, lock them up for a year and a half. Give them severe prison sentences and so on. Well, what's going to happen here? We're not going to see the January 6th principle tested. When left is pushed their way past the barricades when leftists moved into unauthorized buildings. I'm going to be waiting to see what the Justice Department does, what the Biden people do, whether these people are now put into solitary confinement, let's wait and see. Let's face it America's facing some huge challenges, soaring inflation, the worsening crisis at the southern.
"dinesh" Discussed on The Dinesh D'Souza Podcast
"I mean, not just some rumors about this justice is leading that way. Anonymous sources say the whole decision is out. And somebody put it out. Somebody, somebody leaked this. By the way, the leaking is a crime. Here is a statute 18 USC 6 41. It's a crime to knowingly convert any record of the United States, including legal opinions. And release it personally for your quote personal use, but in this case, to serve some personal agenda penalty one to ten years in prison. Now, the draft that we're talking about of this opinion was written in February. So it's not current. And what happens with these drafts is that they go to the other justices and they go to their Clorox. It's essentially a deliberative process. The other justices are supposed to weigh in. And it has been the case in the past when sometimes the in that process of deliberation. And in fact, the process of writing, rebuttals, raising points that the original justice may not have thought of. The original justice might revise his opinion. The opinion may come out different, or the outcome may come out different. In other words, sometimes even the vote, which might be 5 to four can change. I don't think that will be the case here. It appears that there are, I mean, this is an issue in which obviously the justices have given a great deal of thought. They know the gravity of the issue. And so I don't expect that we're going to see a shift in the number of votes. But shifting the vote throughout outside pressure appears to be the strategy of the leaker. In other words, if you look at what possible motive, would you have to leak this document? Well, it's hard to see the document being leaked from the right. Why would you do it? Why would you want to put out early? Not only the outcome of the case, but the full decision. And you would want to do that in a very thoughtful and measured and planned way. But the leaker had other intentions which I will pick up in the next segment. Have you heard of bogo? Well, it means.
"dinesh" Discussed on The Dinesh D'Souza Podcast
"We're living through extraordinary times and I don't mean that in a positive way. What I'm talking about is attacks on fundamental precepts, norms and institutions. Another way to put it is that the guardrails of our society seem to be toppling down seem to be coming off. In the movie 2000 meals, I'm obviously referring to the right to vote. But I also could refer to the right to speak, the ability to speak freely, the rights of conscience are under attack in our time. We can no longer count on equal justice under the law. The simple idea that political parties should not use the power of the state against their opponents. That's out the window. And now we have a massive attack on the independence of the judiciary. So I want to focus on that in the next few segments and explore the leak, which is the kind of news item, the leaking out of information that should be held very closely and has been held very closely in the past. So the biggest case in front of the Supreme Court is the Dobbs V Jackson women's health organization. This is the abortion case. This is the Mississippi case that outlaws abortion beyond 15 weeks. And of course, the court was sort of faced with sort of three options, a firm roe versus wade. Number two, uphold the Mississippi law, but somehow square it with roe versus wade and the third, knock over roe versus wade and along with that Planned Parenthood versus Casey, essentially return the abortion question to the states. And there was a leak that just came out in the magazine well on the website political. And the league not only says that the court has arrived at an early decision to overturn roe versus wade, but the decision is 5 to four that justice Samuel Alito has drafted the majority opinion, representing the 5 justices, and we know who those 5 justices are, so if I used to say that Roberts decided not to be in the 5, although I'll talk about Roberts a little bit later. A 5 four decision 5 votes to overthrow a row, return the matter to the states. And Alito drafted a lengthy opinion 98 pages. Now this is not the final opinion, but nevertheless, it is a closely reasoned, heavily footnoted detailed argument..
"dinesh" Discussed on The Dinesh D'Souza Podcast
"Slash dinesh and take a stand for America. Our next question is about judge catan G Brown Jackson. This is Peter from Connecticut. My concern is that as bad as things are now in four to 8 years, people will forget what it was like to be under complete democratic control. Would it be helpful to have Brown Jackson as a reminder to people of the bad old days of ultra liberal left wing politics, which could come back at any moment if elections go awry. I mean, this is a, this is a question only a conservative would ask because the question in effect is, do we need a really bad Democrat on the court? Just as a kind of sober reminder of how awful these people are. Now, if you flip the question, you'd never hear a Democrat say, hey, listen, let's have a real right winger on the court because this way it'll remind us of how horrible those right wingers are. The Democrats view is let's say I'm only Democrats on the court. They want complete victory. They don't even believe in the symbolic deployment of the other side. If only as a reminder of how bad that side is. Look, I don't think we need to stick our hands in the fire every now and then to remember that fire burns. I don't think that we need a Manson Family member to go do a gruesome murder every few years to remind us of how bad those people are. One of the points I tried to make in my film Hillary's America is that the rot in the Democratic Party is not episodic. It goes back to the beginning of the party. It started with Andrew Jackson. I mean, Andrew Jackson was a guy who invented, you may say, for the Democrats, the art of buying votes. We think today that's a phenomenon of the modern welfare state. It's a phenomenon that started with Woodrow Wilson. Yes, it did, in a sense. But if we go back to Andrew Jackson, what that guy was doing was he was pushing the Indians off their land using military force, and then what he would do is ascend essentially make that land available to poor white settlers who were like only to excited to be getting land for little or no value, but they all understood. Hey, who's giving us this line? Who's making it possible for us to occupy this land? Well, it's Andrew Jackson, so we should be grateful to him politically. Let's keep the guy in power, so Andrew Jackson was very well aware. That he was trading, you might say, land opportunities or land access for votes. And this is the Democratic Party got going. And then pretty soon it became the party of the slave owners, Andrew Jackson, of course, himself was a slave owner and a particularly cruel one. So we have a party that has now really since the 18 late 1820s. Democratic Party is sort of official date 1828. And it's been pulling one shenanigan after the other from slavery to segregation to Jim Crow to racial terrorism and on and on. So I don't know if people haven't gotten the message. Now a lot of people, of course, don't know the history of the Democratic Party. There's effort in schools and also by historians to who are on the democratic side to hide this history. And I think we would do a better job of publicizing it. It's really important. I find that when you talk, for example, the blacks about the racist history of the Democratic Party, it has an eye opening effect. For many years, Republicans didn't do that. They just talked about the fact that well, you know, Republicans aren't really all that racist. It's wrong to call us racists where, you know, there are racists in our on our side, but you know we're not racist as a party. And that kind of defensive rhetoric gets you nowhere. But if you say, well, you know what, think of the worst crimes of American history, the displacement, and in some respects, genocide of the Native Americans, the internment of the Japanese after World War II, think about the outrageous perpetrated against blacks in various forms through the decades of American history. Well, who did those things? Well, it was the Democrats. The Democrats, in fact, this was part of their political strategy. This was part of how they held together the so called solid south. And white supremacy was coined minted and then promulgated by the Democratic Party. So look, I don't think we need ketanji Jackson as a kind of menace on the court to remind us of how bad these people are. We need to do a better job in publicizing and educating people the Democratic Party is the party of bigotry and the party of theft always has been is now and isn't likely to change in the future. When did we decide to stop upholding free speech as a basic right? Look, whatever your politics, everyone should have the right to express themselves freely now, sadly, the big tech monopoly is instead opted for silencing tactics and censorship to fight back against big tech's control of the Internet..
"dinesh" Discussed on The Dinesh D'Souza Podcast
"Hi, dinesh and Debbie. In this age of identity politics, what do you and Debbie think of the concept of the hyphenated American? Well, honey, why don't you go first on this one? Speaking from a hyphenated American? Yeah. Yeah, so I, you know, the interesting thing about that is when I was in college, I was not, I never hyphenated my ethnicity ever. I was an American and only an American. But I did notice, though, that the left, even then, always wanted to make it an issue. And so I fought against that. For example, somebody from lulac came up to him. Lulac, the league of Latin American citizens, something like that. Something like that, but it's actually for Mexican Americans born in America. I think that that was the thing. And so I said, listen, I am too, I'm too I have too many things in me. I'm not Mexican because I wasn't born in Mexico. My mother is Mexican American. She was born in Texas, but I was born in Venezuela. So I have a lot of my cultural Hispanic, so to speak. Spans through two continents, right? So what I think is funny is that they were training your reluctance. Yes. As if I was ashamed of my heritage. Right. Yes. And the really funny thing is, at the time, now my Spanish is horrible now. I'm very guilty of that. That's not horrible, but well, it's not great, and it's because I don't practice it. But when I was in college, I did speak at very fluently. So when this person was talking to me, I decided just to be, you know, funny, and speak in Spanish to him. And tell him, you know, I was not ashamed of my heritage, and the funny thing is that this person did not know Spanish. So then I think he began to realize, oh, wait a minute, you're more Latina than I am.
"dinesh" Discussed on The Dinesh D'Souza Podcast
"Is America a democracy or a republic? We have a very good question about this. Listen. Hi, dinesh. Some conservatives say that we are not a democracy, but a republic. How would you characterize America? Well, let's think about these terms democracy and republic and start by asking what they mean. Now, a democracy strictly speaking is rule by the demos, which is the people ruled by the people. And ideally, the people would rule by consensus. This is how in ancient tribes, you sort of tried to get everybody together and make a decision that everyone agreed with. But in reality, when you have conflicting desires and interests and so on, it's hard to get unanimity, as we all know. So therefore, we get the idea of majority rule and the majority is a surrogate for the whole people. So the majority is not the whole people. In fact, it's 51 or more, but so it can be a narrow majority. But nevertheless, the majority is in a sense making a decision in the state of the whole people. Why? Because you can't get unanimity and obviously the whole people can't be said to be represented by a small minority. So the majority is the closest thing we can get to consensus. That's the logic of a democracy. Now, ancient democracies were direct democracies. And so in ancient Athens, for example, if you wanted to make an important decision, should we go to war with Sparta? Should we raise taxes? You essentially invited all the eligible adult males in that era to show up and decide you have a debate in the Agora, the open space and you choose. You make your decisions. The people rule themselves. Now, the American founders looked at this kind of democracy, and they didn't like it. In fact, Madison rails against it. In fact, he describes ancient Greek democracy as quote he goes popular liberty in those days he goes build statues the one day and gives the same guy the hemlock the next day. He's thinking here actually of Athenian democracy, which puts Socrates its greatest philosopher to death. This is also from the federalist paper as democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention have been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property and have in general been a short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. What's the Madison saying here? Well, what he's saying is that democracy is operated by popular will, but what if the popular will decides, let's ostracize that guy. Let's take that guy's house. Let's put that guy to death. So there's no compatibility between majority will, which often tramples on the rights of individuals. And the idea of personal liberty. So this is why the American founders were unsatisfied with ancient democracy. And found, in a sense, a replacement for it on two counts, two important counts. The first is they moved from direct democracy to representative democracy. And the idea of representative democracy is that we elect other people representatives, congressmen, senators, the president, and they rule in our stead. And the idea here is that that representative democracy can be a little bit more deliberative. Because if you elect representatives, hopefully you're going to elect people who are sort of wiser than yourself. Why is it on the people themselves? And they're going to have time to study issues, consider have debates and makes a representative democracy is a kind of filtering of popular democracy in the old times. Now, however, Madison's big concern and the concern of all the founders was, what about minority rights? Why should the majority be able to run roughshod over the minority? And so majority rights have got to be qualified by number one, limiting the scope of government. That's called limited government. Our number two insisting that individuals have rights, that's the Bill of Rights. Insisting that the minority has rights that later came to be expressed in things like the filibuster and the Senate, the minority too has rights the majority doesn't get to have all the say, and then moreover, all kinds of other mechanisms like separation of powers, checks and balances. By the way, all intended to be limitations and curbs on what the founders believed to be and called the tyranny of the majority. So the reason I think America is more accurately called a republic. But, you know, I don't reject the term democracy because we are a certain type of democracy. We are, I would say a constitutional democracy. And as long as democracy is qualified in that sense that we are a constitutional democracy. Now remember that there are even representative democracies around the world and this is to some degree true in Britain. It's true in Canada and Australia where once you have representative democracy, the majority can make decisions on pretty much everything. You don't have the same architecture of checks and balances. You don't have the same protections for individual rights. That's why, for example, you've got some of these extremely severe COVID limitations in places like Australia and Canada. They don't really care about individual rights. Individual rights are not a big deal. They individual rights are subordinated to the will of the majority, but not here in America. And I think the American system is better. And therefore, we have a Republican form of government. And if we're a democracy at all, we're a constitutional democracy in this specified.
"dinesh" Discussed on The Dinesh D'Souza Podcast
"Even by your convenience, you're motivated by my welfare. So your idea is dinesh, I want you to be healthy. I want you to be around a long time, so you need to eat properly. And exercise is really good for you. And watch my sugar levels. Well, we're both pre diabetic. So we both need to watch our sugar, right? And so now we're eating. He's not supposed to eat chocolate. But I interpretation of free diabetic differs dramatically. To me pre diabetic is another way of saying you are not giant. It's sort of like saying I am, you know, I am free being in the coffin. Yeah, breathing in the coffin. I'm not dead. Yeah. Exactly. Oh no, but so we found these chocolates that are really good. They're chocolate with no sugar. But I always tell you, but honey, you have to watch the chocolate because it has a lot of fat. So even though it doesn't have sugar, it has fat and we have to be very careful because again, we have just a note that sugar free chocolates are really expensive. Sugar free chocolates. But they were literally, I think they were $5 each and once you order them and you factor in the tax, it was $7 per piece. And the piece was like this. I couldn't even. It was tiny. No. It was good, but it wasn't that good. So let's talk about the importance of do you think some people say, and in fact, apparently when young people are asked, what are you looking for in a mate? They answer, the number one answer is a sense of humor. Do you think a sense of humor is important in a marriage and also? Well, I mean, it's a bonus. It's a bonus. It's not important. The person can be kind, compassionate, patient with you. All those things. I mean, there are people who have no sense of humor. They have their nice people. And they are nice people, but when you have all the other qualities that you have, plus you're really super funny and you make me laugh out loud pretty much every day and every night. I think that's a bonus. I think that's like the icing on the cake. Well, I think the reason I make her laugh is because I'm because you're funny. Well, no, it's because I'm straight laced on the surface. But I do, I do see the ridiculous aspect of human.
"dinesh" Discussed on The Dinesh D'Souza Podcast
"Our first question has to do with what issues can and can not be addressed on the podcast and why. Listen. I dinesh. I'm a big fan of your show, but I was wondering, why aren't you talking about certain issues like COVID, vaccines, and election fraud? Do you not think these issues are important? Or do you have some other reason for not talking about them? Thanks. Now, it is a fact of life. A tragic fact of life, but a fact of life nevertheless that in today's America, we do not have in the, let's call it the new public square, which is digital media, social media. We don't have free speech. We don't have free speech, not just on one issue. It started out with one issue or two issues, COVID election fraud. And then that spread or metastasized to a whole bunch of other issues. You can't speak candidly about the trans issue. You can't speak candidly to some degree about abortion. You can't speak candidly about climate and climate change. So as a result, we now have a rigged public debate. Now, for those of us who are in this public space where public intellectuals, a public commentators, it forces us into a kind of dilemma. Option number one, ignore these prohibitions. Continue to speak publicly. And the immediate and predictable effect, in fact, the effect that you are inviting is to be immediately kicked off all the mainstream platforms. Now you might say, well, so let's do an active courage and do that, but the problem with that is number one, we are shutting off the conservative voice in those arenas. And number two, the alternative platforms. Well, initially, we hardly had any, we had parlor, but parlo was shut down. Now we have getter but get her is still small, approximately three to 4 million. And we have rumble, which is bigger, but it's rumble is more of a video platform, and of course for all awaiting the Trump platform, which I think will change the name of the game. But in this unlevel playing field environment, we have this difficult choice. So my choice is this. And that is that I use the podcast to speak about all the issues I can. I take things on the podcast as far as I can. And then I look at alternative
"dinesh" Discussed on The Dinesh D'Souza Podcast
"Love to get questions preferably audio or video, send them to question dinesh at Gmail dot com question to Gmail dot com. Here are some of the questions I'll be answering today. Hey dinesh, why don't you talk about certain topics on your podcast a certain topics off limits? What's the difference between a living cell and a software program? What distinguishes Christian apologetics from what pastors do every Sunday. What happened to the conservative intellectual tradition that we don't hear about so much today and why does it seem largely defunct now? How do you feel about America's gun culture? How do you and your family cope with your incarceration? How can you say that Robert E. Lee was a great military general when the south, after all, lost the war. And so these questions, this is the dash just was the podcast. America needs this voice. The times are crazy in a time of confusion, division and lies. We need a brave voice of reason to understanding and truth. This is the dinesh de Souza, podcast. Our first question has to do with what issues can and can not be addressed.