35 Burst results for "Dinesh"
The Dinesh D'Souza Podcast
The Real Reason for Tucker Carlson’s Abrupt Departure From Fox
"The real reason for Tucker Carlson's abrupt departure from Fox remains a little unclear and there's a bunch of different hypotheses or theories circulating you saw one that was actually well here, the article, this one is well, I mean, can we really trust it? I think it's from The Guardian. The Guardian in Britain. What does it say? Well, it says that Tucker Carlson's vulgar language in texts contributed to fox's firing of him. And what's the vulgar language and who was he referring to? So apparently he was referring to Sidney Powell and some of it. He also referred to Murdock and other parts of it. So, and apparently he was just a very mean guy is what they were saying. Well, I can see if he made that disparaging comments about Rupert Murdoch at this if it got back to Murdoch, Murdoch would be upset. I'm his boss. That kind of thing, I mean, it seems pretty clear that Tucker is a little bit of an early guy. And I say this because in fact, you made this point to me that when Justin B wells sent me very insulting text, this was in the immediate aftermath of 2000 meals. He was speaking in this kind of vulgar, brutish language, and I said to Debbie, I'm like, do you think that Tucker's producer would do this on his own? And she's like, well, it probably Tucker talks like that. So this is like the, this is the talk around the office, and there's a woman named Abby grossberg, who's apparently suing Tucker, claiming that there was all this very vulgar sexist talk going on in the office. Who knows? I mean, I have seen an article as a completely different theory that has nothing to do with any of this. And actually says that it's Tucker's Christianity. And by Christianity, what I mean is not tacos personal devoutness or anything like that. But Tucker gave a speech at heritage right before he got fired. And he basically said this isn't just a political fight. He goes, this is a spiritual war. And the other side isn't just wrong. They're basically like on the devil's side. They're evil. As we've said, yes, exactly.
The Dinesh D'Souza Podcast
Dinesh and Debbie Examine the Prospects of Joe Biden's Re-Election
"Joe Biden is running again believe it or not. You have a guy who can barely carry out this term. It's kind of like a runner. He's having trouble finishing the race. He's gasping, you know, you're not even sure he's going to get there. And then he's like sign me up for the next marathon. I'm ready to go. So what do we make? This insanity. That's what it is. It's insanity. But it's insanity with a purpose because this guy wants to become president again because so many of his relatives are going to go to prison and he's not going to be able to bail them out. He's not going to be able to give them a pardon. So he has to be president. That is the only thing I can think of because this man is, I mean, this is a really interesting theory. It is that, look, as Biden's been president, so he's checked the presidential box, he's pushing 80 or has he turned 80 already. Either one or the other. In any event. He'll be 82. Right. If he runs again and he seems to be depleted and exhausted and a puppet. So who wants to be that? Is that something that you would relish? So you're saying, no, he has an ulterior motive. Absolutely. His whole life is catching up with him. Absolutely, his crimes are being exposed. The interesting thing is that, you know, with this blinken thing and the 51 intelligence officers that have said that they kept the Hunter Biden laptop story out of the muse because they wanted him to win instead of Trump. Well, perhaps if they didn't do that, if they didn't go through such great lengths to stop the news from becoming news, he could have already pardoned him. And then we wouldn't have to put up with four years of Biden again,
The Dinesh D'Souza Podcast
Dinesh and Debbie Review the Twitter “Blue Check Mark” Controversy
"Thought we'd start by talking about Twitter and the so called blue check mark. The coveted blue check mark that once signaled, I'm an important person. I am officially verified on Twitter. I am who I say I am, no one is impersonating me. And in fact, you and I in this conversation because I've been verified. I had to check mark for a long time. And you're like, why can't I get a check mark? I tried for years, and I was like, yeah, you know, people didn't impersonate me. And they were, you know, obviously saying negative things and whatnot. And I was like, I need to be verified because I'm married to a public figure and a public figure myself. And so I need to be verified and I tried, I would submit my license, my passport, all kinds of things. And I never did get verified. Well, this was the old Twitter regime and Elon Musk comes along and he could have just said, well, listen, I'm going to create a fair process of verification so that only people who do have this kind of public figure status, but in fact, he decided to democratize Twitter itself. Basically, say, listen, if you want to have a confirmed identity, you want to have a blue check mark. Pay 8 bucks. And then show that you're you. And you'll get it. So he opened up the blue check mark to everyone. And it's funny is that the left is like freaking out over this and getting really annoyed and they're elitism. They're shocking elitism. It's coming out in spades. Here's an article in slate. Now it's a disguised article. They don't want to say what aristocrats were better than everybody else. So here's how deep they frame it. How Elon Musk turned the blue check mark into a scarlet letter. So supposedly Elon Musk has made the blue check mark something negative instead of something positive. And the subtitle is a weekend long masterclass in business failure. So, you know, the article basically says you've got these celebrities think of people like LeBron LeBron James or I guess the novelist Stephen King and they say I will not pay for my blue check mark. And so Elon Musk will sort of like really, all right, fine, I'll pay for you. So evidently, Elon Musk has covered the $8 cost of some of these celebrities.
The Dinesh D'Souza Podcast
How Can We All Fight Election Interference?
"In some of these cases, the ordinary citizen can do some things, but not much and not most of the things that need to be done. The ordinary citizen, a viewer to ask me like dinesh, what can I do? Sure. I'd say volunteer become part of the election process become a poll observer. Just having eyes on the process is useful. And so you'd be doing if you have the time, if you're willing to do it, this would be a noble task for you to do. But it's up to the Republican Party and it's up to the Republican legal establishment. And it's up to the campaigns, the Trump campaign eventually the desantis campaign. They're the ones whose fate is at stake here. They're the ones that need to jump in and create the engineer the mechanisms that make sure that the same kind of election interference, the un leveling of the playing field. The rigging of the rules so that they benefit one party over another, whether legal or illegal, that we have ways to counter that. So we're able to expose the illegality or something is legal. We can build our own operations to do it. We stop the nonsense about vote only on election day. That may be some kind of a utopian ideal. Well, you got to vote and bank our votes early so that the kind of Maricopa style glitch can undo a critical race in a critical state.
The Dinesh D'Souza Podcast
The 2024 Election Ramps Up
"It seems like things are starting to get going for the 2024 election. Biden has announced nap Biden's announcement was sort of a non announcement that kind of pathetic video that he made. And in some ways, I don't even know if they wanted this to be a quiet announcement. Quiet in the sense that it mobilizes the Democrats activism. It gets the fundraising going, but they don't want to necessarily put it out front. On the Republican side, Trump is certainly in the fray and blasting away at some of the others notably dissent is to Santos David mentioned to me has set up an official exploratory committee, which means that he is very seriously thinking about running generally. You don't do that. Unless you really want to get into the ring. And what I want to do is call attention to something that seems to have gone a little bit ignored, diminished. By the way, aside, and that is the issue of how do we fight the things the Democrats did in 2020 that they will surely do again in 2024 if the Republicans haven't taken action to counter them. Notice that in 2022, while the Democrats didn't pursue the same exact type of election interference or election fraud, they found other ways to get the needed result.
The Dinesh D'Souza Podcast
How Vivek Ramaswamy Played a Role in Getting Don Lemon Fired at CNN
"Want to talk about a lively and quite interesting exchange that occurred on CNN between Don lemon and Vivek Rama Swami. Who was on this podcast, gosh, what a week or so a couple of weeks ago. And Vivek is this young Indian American guy running for president, and CNN invited him to come on. And he got into it with Don lemon. And the reason I bring this up is for a couple of reasons. Well, one reason is that it looks to be one of the last straws that got Don lemon fired. And so I want to talk about it from that angle. What happened and what is it about that exchange that caused the CNN people to go, oh, that's it. Don, you're out of here. But then second, I want to do something that very few people have done. And that is to look at what they will arguing about because that in itself is also interesting. They were discussing the civil rights movement. They were discussing who has the right to speak about civil rights, is this the special prerogative of blacks, do Indian Americans get to weigh in? Should Indian Americans just sort of shut up and be grateful that the civil rights movement delivered the goods for them too. So all of this is at issue here. But let's sort of just start with the incident itself because. Lemon was sitting alongside his co host. This is poppy Harlow. And something very interesting happened. He got into it with Vivek Rama Swami and you can kind of watch the female co host poppy Harlow kind of her body language is she pulls back and she kind of like pulls up her phone. She begins to look away. You can see she's very clearly signaling to the audience, but also to her CNN bosses, I want no part of this.
The Dinesh D'Souza Podcast
Whistleblower Drops Bombshell on Biden's Immigration Policies
"A new whistleblower appeared before the Republican Congress yesterday. And offered some startling evidence and made some startling accusations. And her name is Terra Lee rotis. And she testified before the House judiciary committee. The issue was immigration, and we know, and have known for some time about the porous border. We know about the Biden administration, shenanigans, the willing cooperation with cartels, the gangs coming over into this country, the drugs coming over the sex trafficking that can occur with the migrants themselves. And all of this is just repulsive and why the Republican House has not already begun impeachment proceedings of mayorkas is beyond me. This is where Republicans tend to be kind of straight laced. They will how has Mallorca's violated the law? Well, the law is being massively flouted. And the fact that this isn't just Mallorca, it's just Biden policy. Well, who's the representative of that policy? It's my orcas.
The Dinesh D'Souza Podcast
Ron DeSantis Visits Israel As Disney Sues Him for Alleged Retaliation
"Ron DeSantis is in Israel right now. Seems to be on a kind of globe trotting expedition. And I don't know the exact purpose of it, but the kind of obvious purpose to infer is that he wants to show that there is a foreign policy dimension. Think of it. Or the governor of a state or the CEO of that state, but that means you're dealing with domestic issues. In fact, even issues like immigration are somewhat outside of your control, not entirely, but that's a federal matter. And moreover, all of foreign policy is a national not a state issue and the president is the commander in chief. So desantis setting doesn't want to go into the campaign with the, you know, have you ever been to Israel? No, I haven't. Have you ever been to Poland? No, I haven't. So I think he wants to show. I've been to these places and moreover, I've met with the leaders of those countries. I've been able to see for myself what's going on. I'm developing a broader horizon than merely the state of Florida. So this seems to be the purpose of it. Meanwhile, in Florida, the Disney corporation has filed a lawsuit against dissenters and also against the new state oversight board, claiming that the state of Florida is engaging in targeted retaliation against Disney. Now, let's look at what the nature of this lawsuit is. The lawsuit basically says that the government is punishing Disney for expressing an unpopular political viewpoint and this violates Disney's constitutional rights.
The Dinesh D'Souza Podcast
Trump Goes “Scorched Earth” on DeSantis
"Trump is going scorched earth on desantis. It seems like when I look at Trump's feed on truth social, every single day he's pummeling desantis and in fact, Debbie and I were watching Trump's most recent ad that he's put out and add that actually in some ways makes you laugh. It makes you laugh because it's so trumpian and it's so over the top and the basic theme of the ad is the Trump created desantis. So the desantis was this kind of absolute nobody. Get the impression he was just some guy on the street. Who decided to sort of run for governor, he had absolutely no chance in the Republican primary, let alone in the governor's race, then to the rescue rides in Trump, Trump basically annoying dissenters and then desantis has a glowing future. So Trump's point is that this guy is who's claiming to be this kind of better alternative to me is none other than you may say my political offspring. So it's a condescending ad and the little the meaning, of course, or desantis. But it also makes you laugh because it's like, wait a minute. I mean, this may be true. Trump is from a generation earlier than desantis. So no surprise, a lot of people have come up through the Trump movement. Think of it. A lot of people came up through Reagan pretty much the entire generation of Republican leaders from Newt Gingrich to Jack camp so many others came up through the Reagan revolution. And so this is something actually Trump should be proud of, but not in the negative sense of bashing those people and saying, hey guys, listen, you would have been nowhere because of me, it would be more appropriate for Trump to say, really, the opposite. I'm proud of the Sanders. I'm actually glad that he's gone on to do a good job in Florida.
The Dinesh D'Souza Podcast
Economist Peter St. Onge Talks About the Fate of the Dollar
"Peter, let's talk a little bit about the dollar as a global reserve currency. I mean, all of us in this country, we use dollars. We have pretty much all our savings and wealth in dollars. Should we be worried? And what's happening to the dollar on the global market? Yeah, the dollar was given this really dominant position over the entire world economy coming out of World War II, right? The rest of the world was completely obliterated. The U.S. had, I think a majority of world GDP at that point, the U.S. basically was the world. And ever since that moment, 1944, the U.S. has been losing very gradually, but it's been losing share, little by little. And this is partly because other countries have grown. So Europe, Japan, places like Korea, China, of course. And what's happened in the past couple of years is that that has really accelerated. And what's driving it particularly last year was a bit shocking how quickly the U.S. started losing ground. So there's an economist former Morgan guy Steven Jen and he did the math. Once you control for the price of the dollar, the dollar lost 8% of its share of global reserves. So that brings the dollar down to 47%, 8% in a year is shocking. That is a very, it's really a flight from the dollar. And what's driving that, of course, we have the inflation and that makes people nervous about a dollar being a good store of their wealth. But pretty much everybody else in the world also has inflation, even Japan ramped up inflation, Europe, of course, most of the world ramped it up in order to buy these COVID lockdowns. we're merely one of the gang at that point. What's really driven this wholesale flight from the dollar is the sanctions on Russia.
The Dinesh D'Souza Podcast
Peter St. Onge Tries to Make Sense of Biden's Economic Accomplishments
"Guys, I'm really happy to welcome to the podcast a new guest. His name is Peter, saint Ange ONG is an economist at the heritage foundation, former MBA professor in Taiwan. I actually encountered Peter with videos that he makes regularly about economics and freedom. Peter, welcome to the podcast. Wow, we're living in strange times. It looks to me that there's a lot of economic chaos in the United States, perhaps America even losing its position economically in the world, and yet on the other hand, you have President Biden. I'm running again because I've been doing an amazing job. In fact, I need to finish the job that I started. So I thought I'd begin by asking you to make sense of this kind of disconnect. First of all, what is Biden referring to in terms of his economic accomplishments and then can you, can you set that against the larger stage of what's happening in the country and more broadly? Yeah, thanks for having me on dinesh and God help us all if Biden finishes the job given what he's managed so far. His president and C so far has been largely paying back the activists who brought him to the dance. So he's delivered a lot of crony handouts for green energy and things like this. Sort of click bait for the activists. And the rest of his alleged victories have been the economy sort of springing back from the insane lockdowns that had been imposed during COVID. And so, you know, when Biden goes on about the job growth or the income growth or the rest of the alleged accomplishments, these were all freebies that were just sitting there, you know, policy had been sort of holding crushing the economy down. And of course, when you let the people actually go work and open their businesses again, then lo and behold, jobs are created.
The Dinesh D'Souza Podcast
Is Tucker's Departure From Fox News a Win or a Loss?
"The question is, is tacos departure from Fox really for our side, a win or a loss? Now, I don't want to be one of these people who go Tucker's free, Tucker can say whatever he wants. It's a big win. There are people who are acting as if this is an unmitigated victory. But no, I think it's quite obvious that Fox is an important cable channel. It's certainly got ratings that far exceed CNN or MSNBC, Tucker was the most prominent cable host in the country. And he was presenting ideas who couldn't get anywhere else. And we don't have Fox as a forum to present those ideas anymore. So that is a negative. I don't see how you can see it any other way. I often talk about the fact that there are older guys who are not active on social media who aren't following my podcast on rumble. They might be fans of mine, but by and large they a way of consuming news is leaving the Fox News channel on for much, if not all of the day. And these are the guys who get or used to get Tucker. So now are they going to pivot and look for one America news or newsmax or are they going to start foraging social media? Perhaps, but perhaps not. And so that's the downside. Now, here is a potential upside and I get this actually from a Twitter chain from my friend Larry Alex taunt and whom I've had on the podcast before. And he goes, you know, Tucker under the Murdoch regime was a guy with a little bit of a chain around him, not that he had no latitude, but he had latitude to move within a certain confined space. And he gives Larry gives two examples. He goes, number one, Tucker puts out a couple of clips from January 6th, and then zip no more. His other example, 2000 meals. He gave no coverage to 2000 meals. He goes, maybe he didn't want to, but Larry goes, nah, he probably did. He probably would have. He knew that this was in the news. It was something he should cover, but he got pressure from above.
The Dinesh D'Souza Podcast
Joe Biden Promises to "Finish the Job"
"Joe Biden is running for reelection. Wow. First of all, I can't say I saw this coming when Biden first took office in January of 2021. It looked to me like this guy was a very much of a transitional figure, very much of a puppet. And I'm not saying he isn't. I think he still is, but it looks like he wants to continue to be that, whatever he is. For another four years and this means that we're going to have a leader if Biden makes it in his 80s. Now, Trump isn't exactly young either, so you're actually dealing with the possibility of a Biden Trump rematch in 2024 and you have both guys who are really up there. Now Biden, while Trump appears to be physically fit, energetic, there's absolutely no signs of cognitive decline. You may think Trump is out of control, but Trump is being Trump. Biden, on the other hand, is a kind of feeble shadow of the old Biden. He appears physically impaired. He appears cognitively impaired. He says things that make absolutely no sense, and I'm talking about just grammatically. I'm not even talking about the fact that I don't agree or there's no factual basis. I'm talking about the simple ability to communicate and sort of a coherent way, which we would take for granted in the U.S. president. Even more scary, Biden says that he's running to quote finish the job. This I say with a chuckle, but I'm a little bit of a nervous chuckle because what does he mean by finish the job now I saw a funny quip by Republican congressman on social media this morning he was finished the job of giving the country to China.
The Dinesh D'Souza Podcast
Dinesh Shows How Culture Is Downstream From Politics
"I want to talk about a slogan that has acquired a certain almost mainstream status on the right. It's a slogan that goes back to Andrew breitbart. And it is the slogan that politics is downstream from culture. That's a slogan. Politics is downstream from culture. Now, what does this mean? Well, it means that cultural change proceeds political change. That cultural change comes first. And then causes the political changes that flow from it. And this is intended typically as a kind of admonition or even a critique of the Republican Party and of conservatives. Who tend to focus a lot on politics. And in fact, this is pretty normal. Typically when I am raising money for films, I go talk to potential investors. They're used to putting money into campaigns, they're used to giving to candidates, but they're like, what is the purpose of these films? What do these films actually accomplish? And of course, it's very much in my interest to say, politics is downstream from culture. In other words, that if we can shape American culture and American mores and values and American public opinion, then surely the American people will vote for the right candidates and will choose the right policies and the rest of it will kind of follow. Now, as I say, there's a good deal of evidence going for this. And perhaps the best example I can think of to support the point that politics is downstream from culture is the issue of gay marriage.
The Dinesh D'Souza Podcast
Don Lemon Fired From CNN "In His Prime"
"On happier note, Don lemon has gotten the boot at CNN. The news came the same day as Tucker's departure and while tacos departure has, I think, large implications with lemon, this was like overdue. This guy was a complete dud, his ratings were horrible. And in fact, Trump was with characteristic glee. He's like the dumbest man on television. He goes, what took him so long? And apparently the firing was completely unexpected. Don lemon, in fact, put out on Twitter. He says, I am stunned after 17 years of CNN, I would have thought someone in management would have the decency to tell me directly. At no time was I ever given any indication blah blah blah. Now CNN put out a statement, basically saying, well, we offered to have a meeting with management and you Don lemon declined and just decided to go do your rant on Twitter, so there's a little bit of back and forth. Between lemon and CNN now, the interesting thing about lemon is that, well, first of all, I was kind of chuckling because remember when lemon referred to Nikki Haley as being, quote, past her prime. Well, Don lemon is definitely not past his prime. In fact, that's kind of what makes us firing so great. If he was past his prime, we would be understandable. He's past his prime time to make room for someone else, but lemon was fired in his prime. So even in his best years, the guy was just not all that good.
The Dinesh D'Souza Podcast
Theories Swirl Around Tucker Carlson's Sudden Fox Departure
"Continuing my discussion of taka Carlson and his sudden and somewhat shocking departure from Fox. Well, a theory about this is that Tucker is being sued apparently being sued by somebody for creating a hostile work environment, the accusations seem kind of vague. Mostly it seems to be the fact that taco just kind of rounded up his staff and subjected them to various red pilling exercises and this was supposedly very disturbing to this individual. In any event, it's hard for me to believe that that is in fact the real explanation. True, it's coming on the heels of the dominion settlement, but unless there's something far more to all this than we know. That seems to me to be a dubious explanation. Another explanation that's been reported in a merely passing this along is the idea that Tucker was angered Rupert Murdoch by going down the January 6th road. Now, if this is true, and if either a Rupert Murdoch or the Murdoch family was upset about this, that shows that foxes in serious trouble. Why? Because they're taking mainstream topics of genuine public interest and certainly of intense interest on the right topics like election fraud, what really happened in 2020. What happened in 2022 and say Arizona. The continuing tragic plight of the January 6th defendants, the real abuses of judicial process and procedure, the corruption of judges, the ruthlessness of the prosecution, penalties, out of proportion to the offenses, solitary confinement for months, in some cases, years before trial, all of this is going on. It's an outrage, it is of deep concern to many Republicans and conservatives, and if the Murdochs are like, well, this isn't going to be off limits at Fox. Well, that's going to be very bad, that's a very bad comment on Fox itself.
The Dinesh D'Souza Podcast
Tucker Carlson’s Fox Exit Overshadows All Other "Big News"
"The news that exploded yesterday about Tucker Carlson leaving Fox has taken everybody with, well, not just surprise, I would say, even a sense of shock. Well, it's shocking on a number of levels, and of course it's also the implications of it. It changes a lot of things about our media landscape, even our political landscape, Tucker was and is different, even though he was one of the prime time hosts at Fox. He was in a sense in his own category in his own league. He went places that other hosts won't go. He took on topics, and his approach was unconventional. It was also trumpian, in a sense, he was probably a more vocal critic of the Ukraine war than just about anybody else, not just at Fox, but certainly in media in the country. He was at least willing to go down the road of exposing January 6th. Now it looks like after he published a couple of clips, they reined them in. They pulled them back. And in fact, this kind of putting the reins on Tucker. I think might have actually been an important factor in his in his departure. But with Tucker out and Fox and who knows what Tucker will do next, I'll talk about that in a minute, but it's very clear that this will have implications for the Republican primary. It will have implications for the big presidential race coming up next year. In fact, Debbie is like, are you going to talk today about Biden announcing? It's kind of strange, but that's almost become kind of a non event. The talk is mainly about Tucker. In fact, the other thing that got upstage and I'll talk about this in the future segment, Don lemon, Don lemon got fired and CNN and Don lemon were trying to make a big deal about it, but no one was paying attention. Well, I mean, no one paid attention to Don lemon even before. But the taco news has been totally front front and center.
The Eric Metaxas Show
Dick Morris Analyzes This Moment of Existential Crisis for America
"That we're talking about a president of the United States behaving in a way that is treasonous, this is unprecedented. This is absolutely, this is a moment of existential crisis for the United States of America. Yes. It is. Even if the election hadn't been stolen, it certainly is. And what we need to do now is to understand what China got. We know now that they gave, what did they get? And what did they get? I mean, let's talk about it. We're speculating, but I would put high on the list. The fact that nominally to appease the green movement, the entire American economy has been slowed down and China's accelerated because they don't have any restrictions for global warming at all. And we have a ton of them. Who is the architect of this satanic schemes? We know that bumbling Joe Biden is not it. He's a puppet for other people. Who is behind this? Well, I believe that you go back to dinesh d'souza's theory about the roots of Obama's rage. Where he basically says that Obama sees the world not in terms of U.S. versus the east or freedom versus communism. He sees it in terms of colonialism. That is the domination of three quarters of the world by one quarter. And anything that evens up those odds that lowers the power of the one quarter and raises the power of the other three quarters in his view is just wise and acceptable. And that's really where you have to look for. So you believe that Obama and company are behind what's really happening. Oh, yes. Yes, absolutely. That's why that's why Susan, that's why Powell exists.
The Dinesh D'Souza Podcast
"dinesh" Discussed on The Dinesh D'Souza Podcast
"Friend of dinesh dot com coming up. I'm going to examine the issue of police brutality by diving deeper into the diary Nichols case. And I'm also going to compare it to the brutality of the capitol police on January 6th, 2021. Author and veteran Chad robuchon joins me in studio. We're going to talk about his group's amazing rescue operation in Afghanistan, a story vividly captured in his new book, which is called saving Aziz. This is the dash just was a show. America needs this voice. The times are crazy, and a time of confusion, division, and lies. We need to brave voice of recent understanding and truth. This is the dinesh d'souza podcast. I want to continue my
The Dinesh D'Souza Podcast
"dinesh" Discussed on The Dinesh D'Souza Podcast
"Text and ash to 9 8 9 8 9 8 to get started today. Here comes our next question. Here we go. Hey dinesh, this is Brandon Copeland, Republican nominee for Texas state Senate district 16. My question is, what do you think is the best way we can fight the overt conservative censorship that we're seeing on many of these digital and social media platforms? Very simple and direct question and I think this has to be fought in many ways. Now, Texas, of course, as you know, has a has a law. That was recently put on the shelf, put on the shelf by the Supreme Court because there are important First Amendment issues involved. Let's remember the First Amendment protects you and me, as citizens, but it also protects these digital platforms. They have First Amendment rights. And so Twitter is able to say, as a Facebook, as is YouTube, that we have the right to put whatever we want on our platforms. And strictly speaking, that's true. But there is a kind of set of underlying conditions behind that, which is to say these platforms really can't be monopolies. And they can't be vehicles for the government to surreptitiously supply. Hey, censor this guy. Hey, Dee platform, that guy. And we know that that's been going on. So we actually need investigations. This would be something that Republicans can do. If they take the House and the Senate, begin investigations into the actual mechanisms that these platforms use for censorship. And as if it turns out, if you can prove that there is a systematic kind of conveyor belt or transmission belt from the Biden administration to these platforms and these platforms are taking orders. A following the lead and the instruction of the U.S. government, then they are then the First Amendment cuts the other way. In other words, the First Amendment says that Congress shall make no law, restricting freedom of speech or the press. And if Congress, here, Congress refers to the whole government. It's not just the not just the legislative branch, but equally the executive branch, which is after all an instrument of the legislative branch. If the executive branch is involved in the business of censorship, that's a whole different matter and opens up all kinds of litigation that would need would need to happen. If you look at the film 2000 meals, what am I doing with it? I mean, yes, I'm talking about these taboo issues. But I'm also using the taboo issues and the way that that material is presented to try to push back against the walls of censorship. How? We'll look at it this way. Let's say I want to take the surveillance video of the state of Georgia. These mule videos and start posting them one after the other on YouTube. Are they in violation of the election guidelines? Well, yes. Because they're discussing this taboo subject that you can not discuss. All you're supposed to do is affirm the idiotic mantra that this was the most secure election in history. First of all, as I've said many times, there's no basis for that. No one's ever done the comparison between different elections that would warrant the making of this statement. This was the most secure election as compared to all other elections. Where's the demonstration of that? It doesn't exist. So nevertheless, Facebook and YouTube are saluting this kind of morons mantra. But nevertheless, if you put these meal videos up, okay, they violate the guidelines. So what? You're gonna take them down? You're gonna take down the official surveillance video of the state of Georgia why, because it is misinformation or more likely because it's information because it is accurate information that you, the censorship platforms are trying to suppress. So stop giving us the big lie. Your big lie, which is that you're somehow censoring falsehood. You're not censoring files with your perpetrating falsehood. Your censoring things that are true. Your censoring actual points of data. In this case, visual data that allow people to come to conclusions different than yours. So the bottom line is that you're basically a sick bunch of characters that far from advancing democratic debate are serious enemies of democratic debate. Which means that the world would be a better place if you are taken down. If your whole platform were to dissolve and blow up, why? Because you've become a propaganda machine yourself. I mean, you're not as bad as let's say Xi Jinping in China, but in some ways you're worse, because after all, the censorship of Xi Jinping is confined to China. On the other hand, your censorship is worldwide. You're suppressing debate in the across the span of the whole planet. So this is something that should certainly be opposed and should certainly be fought. Now, we all know that one way to defeat censorship is to build free speech platforms that are successful. And that work. And as you know yesterday I had Devin Nunez on excuse me, the true social platform is humming along and doing really well. I should be crossing a million followers on that shortly. I'm very happy with getter, getter is showing that it's an excellent platform. I not only post regularly on getter, but I also do a live Q&A every couple of weeks on getter. Of course, rumble is fantastic and showing remarkable growth. I'm now more excited about doing exclusive content on the platform called locals. I've developed a pretty big following on locals, and I'm going to be doing Q&A's and other types of exclusive content, particularly on some of these taboo topics on locals. So if you want to check me out, it's dinesh dot locals.
The Dinesh D'Souza Podcast
"dinesh" Discussed on The Dinesh D'Souza Podcast
"Question. Listen. Hey mister de Souza, my question is, what was it like being an intern for Reagan? And what special memories do you have of him? So in the Reagan White House, I was actually very lucky to at a young age coming as a domestic policy analyst. So I wasn't really an intern and I only say this because of course interns have no access to the president. You have to be on staff and you have to be at least at the middle level. I wasn't at the top level. And so my direct interactions with Reagan were modest. Only a few times did I get to stand in the back of the room along with other staffers. We had our notepads in those days. And the senior staff was right around the table. People like Pat Buchanan or Ed meese, and later the chief of staff was Howard baker. And the senior staff would interact with Reagan, but the rest of us got to stand in the back of the room and observe and take notes and then afterward offer comment to our own teams. In my case, the domestic policy team. So it was a thrill for me because I was in my mid 20s. I think I was I joined the Reagan White House in 1987. So this was in the latter part, the second term of Reagan, of course, during the first time oregano and I was in college. But and I had this big fallacious office in the old executive office building. I mean, an absolutely giant office with a bar and but the real power, by the way, is not in the old executive office building. It's in the west wing, where the office is a much smaller, but you're literally with an earshot of the president. So you have more direct access to him that way. Now, with regard to Reagan, Reagan was a larger than life figure. And in that sense, similar to Trump, rave Reagan walked into the room all the heads turned. It's Reagan. And I think also because of Reagan's experience as an actor, he was very aware of a room. He had a very good sense of how he moved in space, how he was perceived, and so you rarely find bad photos of Reagan where, you know, Reagan is like scratching his head or looking extremely baffled or confused or at least squinting his eyes, none of that. To watch Reagan, I noticed that he had this ability to keep his eye on the big picture. And he allowed his aides to have knockdown drag out debates with each other. He didn't mind that. It wasn't a case where Reagan had a party line and everybody had to echo it no. Whether it was defense, whether it was taxes, whether it was affirmative action, I would see these different departments, the Justice Department, and so on. All vying for influence and also having sometimes competing views of an issue and Reagan would sort of take it in. And generally say very little, and at the beginning I used to think, wow, why doesn't Reagan participate in the debate? And then I realized why, if a leader jumps in early on and lets you know what they think, everybody else is going to sort of modify their views in line with what they just heard from the boss. So Reagan's view as I'm not going to tell you what I think. I actually want you to tell me what you think and argue it out and put it into the kind of battleground of discussion here. And at the end of it, I'm going to make a kind of assessment. I lay out a position because I ultimately want even the people who disagreed with me. To come on board, recognizing that I've done them the due diligence of hearing them out and seeing their opinions emerge through the crucible of argument. Reagan, however, did not have sort of a deep patience with listening to a debate for hours and hours. In fact, when things started dragging on and were not being resolved, I sometimes notice that Reagan would doom the whole thing out. He would just not be paying attention. It's almost like he got the gist, he got the picture. And so here was a guy who had a kind of sense of priorities. I would put it somewhat this way. Reagan knew that he couldn't change the world in 40 different ways. He was not a micromanager in the Jimmy Carter since. Reagan's view was that the reason you have teams. And The White House is the kind of the tip of the pyramid of a very large pyramid. And Reagan's view is I need competent people across the different areas of government to carry out tasks. And they need to be given general direction, not specific direction. At one point, I remember there was a marine who had come in, this was before the invasion of Grenada. Now I was not in The White House at this time. This was before I joined. But I got the story from someone who was there, and they said that this guy was very enthusiastically explained to Reagan, you know, mister president, our plan is to move in over here, and we're going to land here in our troops are going to cut across here, and we're going to do this and we're going to do that. And Reagan just was sort of listening in a generic way and then he tapped the marine on the shoulder and he said something like son..
The Dinesh D'Souza Podcast
"dinesh" Discussed on The Dinesh D'Souza Podcast
"Let's go to our next question, listen. Hey, dinesh, I'm a big fan of yours. I just listened to your episode about responding to Ben Shapiro and while I respect both of you greatly, I noticed you didn't answer two of the questions that he posed and saw recapitulate them and hopefully you can either address them on the podcast by no time is limited or in your upcoming book, but the first is, do you have control states, in other words, did you see this pattern of behavior in states like Mississippi where you wouldn't expect fraud because that may call things into question? I'd be interested to see if you looked at deep blue or deep red states to see if you saw such patterns. And then the other thing is, could you please name these nonprofits where the mules were obtaining the ballots? Those appear to be conspicuously absent from the film. Again, I'm a big fan of yours, particularly your debates with Christopher Hitchens. And look forward to hearing your response. Thank you. Certainly, those are both very good questions. And I will take them in sequence. So let me begin by addressing the issue of the controlled comparison. Now, truth vote did not do that. They did not do, let's say the blue states and the red states. And the reason they didn't is simply because of lack of resources. I mean, this geo tracking data is available, but it's also very expensive. True the vote got a $2 million grant from a big Republican donor, and they were able to deploy most of that money, not all, but most of it, to purchase singing a pretty large ream of data of cell phone data. They picked 5 kind of large urban areas and I think you know the ones that are the swing states. And they're not the whole state. They're the battleground. They're essentially the democratic urban precincts of those states. And their hypothesis, of course, was that was that this is where the fraud is likely to be. If that's going to be fraud. And remember they were responding to a whistleblower in Georgia who came forward and said, I was basically running this kind of a racket in Atlanta. And he described how he was paid. He was described to other people, did it, but he didn't want to give his name. And so the geo tracking was aimed at confirming this larger operation. So you asked the question, why do true the vote focus on these areas? And the answers because these are areas of high suspicion. Now, again, if you have all the resources in the world, then you say, listen, I'm not just going to put my cops outside the bank. I'm going to put cops everywhere in the country. I'm going to run a kind of widespread controlled experiment. And although that's ideal, it's really not necessary for the purposes of what they were trying to do. They were trying to essentially verify whether the whistleblower was right and coordinated fraud operations were being conducted in these inner cities. Now, are there other coordinated fraud operations being run elsewhere? Maybe. But quite frankly, it's not easy to run those kinds of operations outside of the cities because they rely on tight control. They rely on the ability by the way. If you think about the way these stash houses are getting votes, they're getting their fraudulent ballots from nursing homes from campuses from homeless shelters from kind of large apartment buildings where you go door to door, ask people to sign an absentee ballot requests have the absentee ballot then sent to you not to them so you can vote on their behalf. So these are all the ways you can look at this from earlier voter fraud cases. This is basically where the democratic fraud stores get their ballots. They're like experts at this. So the Ben Shapiro point is kind of interesting, but I would say irrelevant now, one thing the truth about did do, I think, a much more intelligent control comparison. And that is that once they found the mules, and they found that, let's say, between October 1 of 2020 and election day, November 3rd, the mules were following this pattern of going to these drop boxes, here's what true the vote did. They bought data in a controlled period for those exact same mules. So in other words, they wanted to see if these meals in their normal life, when it's not election time, do they happen to follow the same pattern of life? Did they, for some unexplained reason, go to those same places, stop by those exact same locations. And the answer is no, they didn't. So, and I think a very creative way true the vote was able to show that even for the mules themselves, this was anomalous behavior in their own pattern of life, a behavior that was limited to the election period. In other words, they were being paid to do something specific in that period. This is not something that they habitually or kind of chronically did
The Dinesh D'Souza Podcast
"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.
The Dinesh D'Souza Podcast
"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.
The Dinesh D'Souza Podcast
"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.
The Dinesh D'Souza Podcast
"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.
The Dinesh D'Souza Podcast
"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..
The Dinesh D'Souza Podcast
"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..
The Dinesh D'Souza Podcast
"dinesh" Discussed on The Dinesh D'Souza Podcast
"We must be intentional with our learning to see any change towards a more equitable workplace. And then the email goes on to show ways that we can retrain our brain. For example, understanding confirmation bias, the tendency to look for evidence we already believe is true. Dinesh, what are your thoughts and how should I respond to this email? Well, this is the kind of thing that government bureaucrats spend a lot of time on. They probably started this weeks ago. International women's day is coming up. It's time to write a memo. And I'm assuming the writing speed at the governmental level is probably something like one sentence a day. So it probably took them weeks to come up with this stuff. And it's all based upon, as far as I can tell, you can almost say refuting the 1950s view of the world, right? Honey, I mean, it's sort of the idea is that after. Yeah, at the end of the 1950s, you have those old ads of the kind of happy housewife at home. I got a new oven. Hi, honey. I got a new oven. And then the guy comes back and he's inevitably some kind of a goofball. I smell some nice things cooking in the kitchen. Oh yeah, then there's right. And of course, you know, look, there's even then it was obsolete. Even then this was a kind of typically what happens is the images of advertising and popular culture themselves reflect an earlier era. So after the war, this is World War II, you have women coming into the workforce and then coming into the workforce in much larger numbers in the 1960s and of course continuing since then, and so here we are. You know, in 2022, what? 70 years later. And we're still arguing about, you know, the America that was reflected in popular culture in the 1950s, which probably reflected the reality of American life in the 1920s and 30s before World War II. So this is rhetoric that's literally a hundred years old. Now, the America that we live in today is an America in which people have choices. And they know they do. And people take it for granted. And young women, no, they can be lawyers if they want to, all they have to do is go to law school and do the work. Now, there are obviously issues that come up where people say, well, listen, I kind of want to have kids. I don't really want to be at a law firm all my life. And so I'm going to go into a particular area of the law that allows me to have these kinds of breaks, if you will, so I can take time off and I can come back, but this is all within the realm of individual choice. And that's really the way it should be. So I don't think we need to retrain our brains. There are some realities about the workplace. There are also, by the way, all kinds of differences in terms of people who choose particular professions, you find certain professions that are dominated by men, you find other professions that are dominated by women. And they can be complex reasons for why people do make the choices they do, but we don't need to be able to go into that. Well, is it nature or is it? What's the reason that you'd rather be a doctor or you'd rather be a poet rather than go to law school, we don't need to figure all that out. It's your choice. That's the point. And what was going on here is that in the name of kind of fighting bias, they're introducing bias. What they're doing is they're saying, essentially, look, what we want you to do is become a kind of gender crusader. What we want you to do is join our social justice movement. What we want is a redistribution of power in the direction of greater supervised control. So all this kind of leftist agenda is masquerading as the solution to a problem that, as I say, maybe was one sub problem in the quote good old days, but is not really a problem that anyone can discern today, and it's by the way exactly the same as race. Look around yourself, people are like, what about white supremacy and everywhere I see? You know, whites are like sycophantic, like responding to blacks. By and large blacks can get away with far more than white scanning our society. There's no question for black kid beats up a white kid. It's a fight. For white kid beats of a black, oh, it's a racial incident, old calling the cops, I'll wait a minute, make sure that this guy is suspended from school his career is ruined. He's on the front page of The New York Times, so the truth of it is that what the left is doing is a crusading against problems that are no longer problems and B very often creating race and gender division where it wasn't their previously, so they can then present themselves as the as the firefighters to extinguish a fire that they themselves.
The Dinesh D'Souza Podcast
"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.
The Dinesh D'Souza Podcast
"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.
The Dinesh D'Souza Podcast
"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.
The Dinesh D'Souza Podcast
"dinesh" Discussed on The Dinesh D'Souza Podcast
"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 forums. So for example, if you join me on locals, you'll discover there are no taboos. In fact, I do a kind of freewheeling Q&A every week and if you want to become a subscriber or a supporter of my locals channel, you can weigh in so you can have a kind of open dialog with me back and forth. Once a week on Tuesday, 7 30 and so if you want to check all that out, go to dinesh dot locals dot com. You can also access locals by the way from my rumble channel. There's a button that rumble recently purchased. Local. So that's an avenue to check out both rumble and locals. Now look, I want to make a really clear that there is no issue I am shying away from on the contrary. I have been working on in depth investigations of some of the most important issues that are on our minds that have been completely taboo, but nevertheless, I am fearlessly grabbing a hold of these issues, but doing it in a way that I think really busts the subject because it's not enough here to put out insinuations and suggestions and I think this is what happened and this must be what occurred and I can't really believe that the outcome was the way it was. In other words, you have to go beyond possibilities and probabilities to certainties. You have to go to this is what happened and you know what? I can prove it. And that's very much my approach. I want to go into this from a position of strength so that no matter what the force is arrayed against me are, I mean, I love the quotation from Winston Churchill, where he says and in fact, this is not the exact quote I'm paraphrasing it, but he goes when it comes to reality when it comes to the truth. You can ignore it. You can revile it. You can disregard it. You can suppress it. You can do whatever you want, but in the end of the day,.
The Dinesh D'Souza Podcast
"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
The Dinesh D'Souza Podcast
"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.