Loading summary
Transcript46 lines
- [00:01]
A
This is the story of the 1. As the purchasing manager at a manufacturing plant, she knows the only thing more important than having the right safety gear is having it there when you need it. That's why she partners with Grainger for auto reordering, so her team members can count on her to have cut resistant gloves on hand and each shift can run safely and efficiently. Call 1-800-GRAINGER click granger.com or just stop by Grainger for the ones who get it done.
- [00:30]
B
Hi everyone. I'm Danielle Gill and I am so delighted to launch this new show. It is a podcast that will release a couple days a week and we will dive into cultural issues, politics, different trends, religion, all kinds of things. And I'm very excited about it. So if you're not subscribed already, make sure to hit the subscribe button. Make sure to follow me on social media and I am at Danielle d' Souza Gill on all the platforms. And if you don't know anything about me, I am the author of two books, why God? An Intelligent Discussion on the Relevance of Faith. And that is where I dove into different arguments for God as well as the choice the abortion divide in America, where I dive into pro life arguments to debunk the left's pro choice arguments. And I am so excited. Today we are going to have on my dad, Dinesh. We're going to talk to him all about some interesting kind of news topics. We'll talk a little bit about the Senate race for the Democrats in Texas of Talarico versus Crockett. And we will also talk about kind of the whole Talarico Colbert situation. And then we will touch on some other very interesting topics. So stay with us. This is the DANIELLE Gill show. I am delighted to welcome our Dan guest today who doesn't need any introduction. Dinesh the Great, thanks for joining us.
- [01:58]
C
I'm happy to do it. And hey, this is a big launch for the show. I'm excited to be part of it. So thanks for, thanks for asking me to come on.
- [02:06]
B
Yeah, of course. Well, I can have a lot of topics to get to, but we can start with the Supreme Court decision that came out, which was unfortunate, but it basically was going against Trump's tariffs. Can you tell us a little bit about what you make of the decision? And do you think that this is going to be kind of a setback for Trump's plans because he was kind of using the tariffs to negotiate with a lot of other countries and this kind of, you know, stops that a little bit. But there might be some other ways that he can still get that done. But what was, what was your reaction to that decision?
- [02:45]
C
Well, start by thinking about the Supreme Court here, because we're sometimes dismayed when these decisions don't seem to go our way or the Trump way. And we think that the justices on the court are backstabbers or they've sold out. But we got to realize that our judges are not like their judges. You know, when the Democratic judges are or Democratic nominees on the court, they look at a decision, they look at the result, and they go, basically, how can we help the Democrats? How can we help the left? So they are result oriented. Our judges, for the most part, are not like that. They're more process oriented. And their view is something more like this. What does the Constitution say about this? And the Constitution sometimes is a little ambiguous. And so reasonable people can disagree about where this power to impose a tariff comes from. Clearly, in general, a tariff is a kind of duty or it's a tax. It is a. You're imposing a cost on a product. And so it can be seen as a form of taxation. Now, the Constitution clearly says the taxing power belongs to Congress. The President does have tools and economic tools that he can use, including tariffs. But to a more limited degree, Trump's tariffs are really sweeping. They're far reaching, they're comprehensive. And so I think what the Supreme Court was saying is that, no, the power to make laws remains with Congress. The President is in charge of carrying out the laws, but he's not the maker of the laws. And so he cannot carry this power so far that he's in effect, making laws as he goes along. You know, 15% today and 20% tomorrow. And I'll bring it down to 10 if you behave yourself, and I'll put it back to 15 if you don't. Yes, Trump does have some discretion, but I think what the Supreme Court was saying is, by and large, the tariff power belongs, as the Constitution itself does seem to suggest, in the hands of the legislative body, which is Congress.
- [04:55]
B
Interesting. Yeah. I've heard some other reactions which basically say that the country is going to suffer from this, though, because we're going to have the these other countries who are going to know that Trump won't be able to play that car. So how is he going to negotiate with them in other ways if they know he's not able to threaten them with tariffs? Because sometimes it's not that the tariffs gone place, it's the threat.
- [05:21]
C
Right. So the court was pretty clear that there are a Lot of things that Trump can do, but there are also some things that he that limit him. He might be able to say something like, okay, well, if that's the case, we won't trade with you. Trump can declare certain types of emergencies or special situations and continue to impose tariffs, but he's going to have to make an executive finding that there is, in fact, some sort of emergency. So it's not that Trump is without resources, but his resources are more limited. Now, the Supreme Court, and when I say the Supreme Court here, I mean the three conservatives who went, see the liberals, you know, they want to be anti Trump, they're going to be. So that's three votes right there. But they got six votes, which means three conservatives joined them. And among those conservatives, by the way, was one very reliable conservative, Gorsuch. So you can't just dismiss this and say, these are left wingers or these are the rhinos on the court. It's not quite like that. I think what happened is that the court decided that if the Constitution gives this power to Congress, then guess what? Our founders created a structure in which the legislative power is kind of messy, Right? Because particularly if you have an evenly balanced Congress or you have. You don't have a real majority in one or both houses, then nothing gets passed. But that is by constitutional design. So I think what the three conservatives who went the other way, went against Trump were saying is, look, that's our system. It was devised that way. If you got a better system, propose it. But we're living within a constitutional system. And so even though this imposes some additional burdens on you, Mr. Trump, you're just going to have to deal with them.
- [07:10]
B
I do think it's interesting, though, because Clarence Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh went the other way. And Clarence Thomas and Alito are very conservative, and they took a different viewpoint on the tariff situation. So I think they are generally the more reliable justices, at least Thomas and Alito. So why do you think they went the other way?
- [07:39]
C
Because I think that the constitutional language is not decisive. If the constitutional language was absolutely decisive, I believe that probably five, if not six, of the conservatives would have gone. I mean, let's just say the Constitution were to say the tariff power shall exclusively be placed in the hands of Congress. Okay, I'm just giving you an extreme example. This is a classic case of where even the conservatives would not go against the Constitution to be pro Trump. They just wouldn't do it because the constitutional language is more nuanced than that, which is why reasonable People can disagree. I think the way it is is that Alito and Thomas in particular are a little more deferential to the executive power. In other words, they believe that the constitutional structure allows for a stronger presidency and so the President should have the ability to take Congress's broad mandates and have a lot of interpretive jurisdiction in how to carry them out. So that's the argument for Alito and Thomas on the one side and against, of course, Gorsuch on the other side.
- [08:51]
B
Interesting. This is the story of the one
- [08:54]
C
as an H Vac technician, he and
- [08:57]
B
his digital multimeter are in high demand. So when a noisy office H Vac turns turns out to be a failing
- [09:03]
C
blower motor, he doesn't break a sweat.
- [09:06]
B
With Grainger's easy to use website and product information, he selects the product he needs to keep everything humming right along. Call 1-800-GRAINGER clickranger.com or just stop by Grainger for the ones who get it done. You mentioned how it is hard to get a lot of things done because of just the way that the the country set up the Constitution. Why do you think it seems like when the liberals have power, they're able to really do a lot. Is it the executive orders? What is it? I mean, we've done a lot too. The conservatives have as well. But there's so much to roll back just because so much evil has taken place from what the Democrats have done that even if we get so much done, there's still just so much more. So how is it that they have managed to pull that off?
- [09:56]
C
You know, Danielle, just this is just like you. It's a really good question, but you can answer it by looking at the Biden administration and looking at what it was able to do and what it was not able to do. So let's look at what it was not able to do under Obama. He was able to pass one significant piece of legislation in eight years, Obamacare, and he got that, like by one vote. And that's a complicated story. Basically, Justice Roberts kind of gave it to him. Very big mistake, in my opinion. Under Biden, the number of significant laws that he passed in his term, zero. None. So he didn't get anything through either. It's not like Biden got all this bad stuff. He cleverly figured out how to do it and he couldn't do it. So Biden's bad actions, if you look at them, were things like leaving the border open, which is like a massive enforcement failure. It's almost like cops who pretend to look the other way while the criminals rob a bank. And that is a horrible thing to do and a horrible thing to do to your fellow citizens. But it's something that's done almost out of inaction rather than out of action. The other thing that Biden did was he was able to promote all kinds of censorship. But again, how was he able to do that? He couldn't do explicit censorship because the Supreme Court would strike him down. So what he did was he essentially did a wink, wink system where he allows these private platforms like Twitter, like Facebook, to go ahead and do censorship. So the administration was collaborating with that. And this shows the power of the left in the culture, in other words, their power in the media, in academia. Because remember that while government changes hands back and forth, that type of power does not change hands. That remains a perfect permanent tilt, a permanent advantage that the left has. And so Biden was able to exploit that. And so all the things he got done or not done were as a result of this. It wasn't that somehow he played our system more effectively. It's true. The Democrats don't care about procedures and principles. They care about outcomes. That's why people are always reminding us, listen, if you don't nuke the filibuster, guess what? They're going to nuke it. It's not like they'll go, they didn't nuke the filibuster. So we're not going to do it either because they have less scruples than we do.
- [12:14]
B
Yeah. And it is interesting. There was a lot that was caused by outside, you know, Hollywood, all these other things that influenced it. But I also think their weaponization of the government against conservatives was something that they wielded very strongly. Going after the pro lifers, of course, the January Sixers, many other, you know, regular Americans they were going after. And we obviously don't do that to them in the same with the same, you know, theory, because I think we were sort of living in the dark ages under Biden. Those were the dark times when we were kind of like, oh, my gosh, you know, the government is really going to be weaponized against all of us, especially combined with, as you said, censorship. But I think that goes back to the government because they were the ones who were encouraging the censorship, censorship of conservatives on. On different platforms. So now we have that opened up. So at least we can have some free discourse on X, for example, thanks to Elon Musk. But that just kind of feels like the tip of the iceberg. It seems like there's just so much more that we need to peel back where now maybe we're able to have some free speech. But even still, to be conservative is very difficult, even in, let's say, the, you know, business world, like you said, academia, Hollywood, all these places. So we still have so much more to do.
- [13:31]
C
We have a lot to do. We haven't done anything to expose in a big way at least we haven't successfully done it. The fraud of the 2020 election, we haven't prosecuted leading Democrats. There have been a couple of cases of the mortgage fraud, but even that seems to so far have gone nowhere. We do have a modest Face act prosecution, which includes, of course, Don Lemon. But again, look at the scale. Look at the scale of January 6, which involved so many people facing and the Biden administration moved with almost like Nazi type of blitzkrieg, whereas we move in a kind of measured way. And that shows you that even under Trump, we're seeing a slow walking of these things compared to the other side. It's like the Republican Party has tied, toughened up a little bit since the Bush years. By the way, in the Bush years, we would be doing none of it here.
- [14:29]
B
No, I think we've changed a lot since then. There's just a lot more we have to do.
- [14:34]
C
That's right. There's a long way to go. Because ultimately, in my view, I think in your view, they're not going to stop if we don't teach them a lesson and show them that two can play at this game. And so if it were me, I would be looking for a vast expansion of Face act prosecutions. In other words, use the very laws that they did weaponize the government in the same way that they did. This is the best way to teach someone a lesson. If they try to shut you down and shut down your free speech, what is better to teach them a lesson than to shut down their free speech? Then they go, oops, suddenly they start quoting John Stuart Mill. Suddenly they discover the virtues of free speech that were unimportant to them while they were. While they could take it for granted and could suppress you in exercising yours.
- [15:25]
B
Another thing I think that the Democrats are really good at doing is narrative capture. They're able to kind of lock in on this narrative and then they just keep on peddling it, even if it is so old, is so stale, people are so tired of it, they just keep jamming the same thing. Like January 6th, for example. They were talking about that for years and the Republicans were different. We're a lot of the Time like, okay, this, this news story happened, a couple days later, it's gone, and we're not still hammering them on it. Meanwhile, the Democrats, they are really sticking on their narratives. So I think we have to lock in on a narrative for this year, for the midterms.
- [16:04]
C
Well, their dis, their discipline is not only impressive, the way you describe, which is like, over the long range, but even in the short range, you can send out a Democratic memo and propose an idea that is completely stupid and they'll all go with it. So, for example, you will have people with a straight face say things like, well, you know, I'm a married woman and I can't find my birth certificate and my name has changed. And so voter ID doesn't really work for me because it's going to suppress my vote. Now, this is the same person, by the way, who produces ID without problems and flying in an airplane and in multiple other occasions. The Democratic Convention will then require ID to get into the dnc. The very congressman who is having a demonstration against voter ID will require vote ID to get into his demonstration. But the Democrats were the strongest. Straight face will continue to say this again and again and again, and they are undeterred. I mean, you think that some of them would go, well, this is a little unbelievable. This is not going to fly. I'm not going to go along with this. But no, they do go along. So not only are they disciplined over the long run, they're disciplined over the short run in that all of them are willing to take marching orders and march in rhetorical goose step.
- [17:32]
B
Yeah, it is definitely true. The Democrats are much more locked in in that sense because a lot of them are really bought in to the same level of intensity. And that's not the case with all the Republicans. Some of the Republicans are, but other Republicans aren't as much. And so it's, it's just difficult because then we have a lot of, you know, the infighting. We have to convince those people to come along on board. What do you think about people like Fetterman, for example, because he has increased his kind of. He's one of the only people who's sort of bipartisan, sometimes votes with the Republicans, has a little bit of common sense. Of course, Pennsylvania, it's a swing state, so he's probably realized that a lot of people in Pennsylvania, they actually agree with Trump on a good amount of things. And so do you think he's kind of moved in that direction because he's realized that's where his voters are or do you think he's one of the only people who just kind of says, I'm not moving in lockstep with the Democrats like we were talking about?
- [18:23]
C
The closest to Fetterman. And Fetterman is by far the best in terms of a rebel Democrat that we've and years. But probably, let's look at the next best. You know, the next best is probably. And the next best is, by the way, pretty far behind was maybe Mansion and Cinema. The Manchin was in a conservative state, West Virginia, and Cinema was in a state very much resembling Pennsylvania, namely Arizona, also a very much purple middle state where Cinema kind of realized, hey, listen, you know, I frankly can win by hugging the center. Now Cinema became very happy, had a very peculiar career, and so it didn't work out for her. I think Fetterman realizes, yes, that a centrist Democrat is going to run pretty strong in Pennsylvania, far better than a left wing Democrat. And so he's striking out on his own. And presumably there are Democrats who could do that in places like Michigan, but they don't do it. And what that tells me is that the money cords, the institutional cords, the organizational cords are controlled by the left wing of the Democratic Party. See, if the right wing of the Republican Party controlled all those chords, if the billionaires on the right were far right, if the organizational structure was all far right, if the powerful institutions were far right, then we would be able to tell the moderates what to do every single time. But because our power is more evenly distributed, the moderates can basically say, no, I want you conservatives to come over to where I am. Whereas in the Democratic Party, the moderate Democrats are not able to do that. Not because they aren't moderate, but because they don't have that kind of power.
- [20:05]
B
Yeah, it is interesting because on the left, their big donors are extremely liberal. I assume the Democrats have run off all of their somewhat moderate liberal donors, whereas Republicans, it's all over the map. And then these people like the senator you mentioned from Michigan, I mean, they barely won, barely, barely even made it. And of course they're going to be radical left now. So the Democrats basically think we'll do whatever we can to win, even if just barely, even if it's, you know, shady. And then once we get there, we'll just go as far left as possible. Whereas a lot of Republicans who are in like a swing district or a tight race, they're going to be more moderate or kind of aware of their, their voter base, I guess, whether that's good or bad. And the Democrats, they, they don't operate like that.
- [20:50]
C
Well, and not only that, Dee, but it's worse than that. And here's what I mean. You have, as you know, a number of areas in Texas that are bright red and yet they are represented by moderate representatives. Now why is that? How is it possible that a bright red district gets this kind of pink or light red? Well, the answer is this. You will have some fire breathing right winger who is in the race, but this guy, he's an activist, he's like, I got some grassroots support, but he has no money. And then what happens is that some middle of the road guy who's kind of a business guy puts $3 million of his own or calls up his friends and raises a bunch of money. And this guy now controls the mailings, he controls, he controls the ads, he controls the airwaves. And so he rolls to victory. Now he might realize, I gotta sound some conservative notes, I gotta take a photograph of myself with a gun. And so I'm gonna get in. But the moment I get in, I now have the power to kind of do whatever I want because I now have the power of incumbency on my side. So not only is it the case that the Republican moderates don't behave the way that the Democratic moderates do, but you find red areas, bright red areas represented by moderate representatives who are not true to the sentiments of their own constituents.
- [22:16]
B
Definitely not.
- [22:18]
A
Here's something most people miss. Investors don't usually lose money because they're reckless. They lose money because they hear about opportunities after the biggest players have already positioned themselves. Major shifts often start quietly in policy meetings, regulatory changes and capital planning long before they make headlines. Right now, AI isn't just a technology story. It's an energy story, a data story, an infrastructure story. And when government and major corporations move in the same direction, the biggest beneficiaries are often the, the financing and infrastructure channels. Behind the scenes. There's one opportunity built around that idea, designed to benefit from the AI buildout without trying to guess which company becomes the next superstar. To get the full breakdown, visit oxford retire.com Again, that's oxford retire.com There are
- [23:17]
B
so many areas that are red that were represented by people who are not as right wing as their district. And it's interesting because even some people who I, I like so much, like Eli Crane, for example, his district is not super red and he is very conservative. So that's kind of the opposite exception. But I think there's just a huge problem because so many people don't realize these things about these people until they're already in office. And then, I guess it's, you know, much more difficult to go against them once they're kind of entrenched there. But wanted to ask you about a different race. Democrats. They're in a very heated Texas Senate primary. You have Talarico, on the one hand, who is kind of this guy who's framing himself as some sort of, you know, seminarian, who's the moderate liberal, but not really. And then you have Jasmine Crockett, who was in Congress, and he's going up against him to be senator of Texas. So you kind of probably saw the whole Colbert situation where Colbert was trying to prop up Talarico. Jasmine Crockett was upset about it because they have this equal time rule, and he didn't want to give her equal time. But now you're seeing that people are kind of infighting on the left, saying, oh, you know, how come Jasmine Crockett's trying to be a spoiler? But then you have the people on the left who are saying, oh, she should get it because she's a black woman and she deserves it, and all this stuff. But then you have all the other people pushing the white male on the Democrat side. Then you have the Democrats who are anti Christian, they hate Christian culture. But then you have Talarico, who's kind of trying to act like he's the real interpreter of Christianity. So what do you make of that race?
- [25:04]
C
I mean, I got to say, at a certain level, it's pretty entertaining. And it's entertaining because if you apply the lens that we've just talked about so far, you begin to see how complicated this one is for the Democrats. Normally, the Democrats like to go with the left winger because that's what their base is. Their financial base, as you suggested, but also their activist base. The problem is that their left winger is a little retarded. Jasmine Crockett, I mean, she is really out there. And so she is not somebody that the Democratic whizzes, the Democratic strategists, think could be even competitive statewide in Texas. So as a result, they're like, let's go for Talarico. And Talarico on the surface, is in some ways perfect for them. Why? Because he is quite left wing, but he tries to put on this urgent, earnest vibe. By the way, Beto was also like that. And Beto came really close in almost defeating Ted Cruz because Beto was able to kind of run on style and make it seem like he's like, an honest to goodness Texan himself. And that wasn't exposed until after the election. So I think this is Talarico's formula. Now, when the Democratic word gets out we're betting on Talarico, then Colbert jumps into action because he's basically a kind of. He takes press instructions from the Democratic Party. He's like an extension of the DNC press office. He's like, oh, yeah, I'll promote Palo Rico. And then when he gets wind that the Federal Communications Commission is like, well, listen, what about equal time? He realizes, no, I don't want to give equal time to Jasmine Crockett. First of all, my own left wing supporters might go for Crockett over Talarico.
- [26:57]
B
So.
- [26:57]
C
So that's not gonna be good. I wanna promote Talarico, but I can't go out and say I'm spiking Crockett. Cause people will be like, you're spiking this black woman. You're not even giving her a fair chance. You're a racist, man. So he doesn't want that. So he's gotta pretend like the reason he's had to kind of pull the Talarico interview and only put that online is because the Trump people. So it's gotta be Talarico against the goons and the Trump administration. So Colbert tries to shift the narrative. Now, if Jasmine Crockett were not black, the Democrats would get away with this. All bets are on Talarico and we're just going to throw his rival off the bus kind of Bernie Sanders style, as happened to Bernie Sanders. But because Jasmine Crockett is black and she's like full ghetto, if I can put it that way. And the Democrats are nervous, you know, this is not the thing they like to do. They don't like to be seen doing it. It looks a little bit like, you know, we're roughing up the young woman on the plantation. So they don't want to give that vibe at all. So they are. This is why it's entertaining. It's entertaining because they're uncomfortable and because even though I think they want all want to bet on Talarico, Crockett is just out there enough and loud enough and insistent enough. She's the one who busted the whole Colbert scam. She's like, wait a minute, I deserve equal time. The FCC is right. Stop bashing Trump. The Trump people are right. I need to. You need to have me on stage. What's wrong with having me on Colbert? So this was great stuff. And when things like this happen, they don't happen too often. We should sit back and enjoy it.
- [28:35]
B
I know. I wish she got on because she would have been real comedy for Colbert because he's supposed to be a comedian, I think. And Jasmine Crockett is very amusing. That's something that I enjoy about AOC and Jasmine Crockett is they are so funny and they give us so much to talk about on the right because so many people on our side just find them mind numbingly dumb. And that does make you wonder if you're a Democrat, do you even care that they're so dumb? Do you even care that they're completely incapable of governance? Because people vote for these people.
- [29:13]
C
Yeah. And that's in fairness that that can happen on both sides. But I do think you said something very interesting, which is that Colbert is supposed to be a comedian. Right. And normally if someone is, you know, you're a journalist and there's a big story or like, hey, look, leave the politics out of it. This is a big story. And you would think that a comedian would be like, guess what, Jasmine Crockett, whatever you say about her, she knows how to get the camera and she's going to say outrageous things and there are going to be a lot of clips on it on social media tomorrow. And so I should play this. I'm not necessarily saying I should make fun of her, but let's have her on. Let's make this very entertaining, but see, it shows you the degree to which Colbert is an ideological apparatchik that to him it doesn't matter. He doesn't care what his ratings are. He would if you tell him, listen, this is a complete dullard. But this is the dullard the Democrats want to get across the finish line. Colbert would be like, let's bring on the dullard.
- [30:18]
A
Here's something most people miss. Investors don't usually lose money because they're reckless. They lose money because they hear about opportunity opportunities after the biggest players have already positioned themselves. Major shifts often start quietly in policy meetings, regulatory changes and capital planning long before they make headlines. Right now, AI isn't just a technology story. It's an energy story, a data story, an infrastructure story. And when government and major corporations move in the same direction, the biggest beneficiaries are often the financing and infrastructure channels. Behind the scenes, there's one opportunity built around that idea, designed to benefit from the AI buildout without trying to guess which company becomes the next superstar. To get the full breakdown, visit Oxford retire.com again, that's Oxford retire.com isn't his show already.
- [31:18]
B
Doesn't already have an expiration date. He just has this year and then that's it. So maybe he doesn't really care about his ratings.
- [31:25]
C
Maybe he doesn't care. You know, maybe the network doesn't care. Maybe he's only, you know, they just tell him, listen, as long as you get three laughs a year, we're okay. You know, I don't know. Used to be such a disgrace. And see, these days, some people post some of the old, you know, Jay Leno skits, the old Johnny Carson, Doc Severinson exchanges, and you just realize that we've just lost all that in our culture. So I sometimes talk about how we've lost, you know, William F. Buckley and Irving Crystal and Firing Line and the kind of highbrow intellectual debate that we don't have anymore. But we don't even have the lowbrow kind of aw, shucks type of comedy that. Where a comedian would just go for a laugh and it didn't matter where the laugh came from. The comedian is like, I'm here to entertain. You know, sure, I may have some political. Every now I'd like to make political digs, but even there, I'm going to let the joke take precedence over the politics. We don't have a lot of that today.
- [32:19]
B
Yeah, somehow the left decided to kill it themselves because they're the ones who said, let's put in charge of whether it's the media or these, you know, outlets. Let's put in charge the people who will basically cancel you if you do that. I guess if you're a Democrat and you, you know, make fun of Jasmine Crockett, you'll probably get in big trouble because she's so important to that side. I guess what is so great to me about being on the right is we've kind of given up on all that. We no longer care if you're this race or that race or whatever. Because at this point we're like, we don't want anything to do with you. So we don't care if people make fun of her. But it used to be the conservatives freak out.
- [32:58]
C
Yeah, we don't. We no longer care if what the New York Times says about us. And we no longer care if the old, you know, bleeding, howling accusation of racism that was promiscuously launched left all across the place to try to shut people down and get them fired and end their careers. That stuff doesn't really work anymore. In fact, it seems these days that the number of fraudulent racial incidents and fakery is, in fact, greater than the actual number of racial incidents. So that's why when you hear about racism, it's almost like, I smell a rat. There's like a 75% chance that you did this to yourself. You wrote that graffiti. You know, you put. You call, you. You know, you sent this letter to yourself. So we are now, I think, in a more skeptical environment and a more don't care environment. And there are parts of that I don't like. But in general, I think it is a necessary response to what the left has wreaked or what they have done in our culture.
- [33:58]
B
Yeah. And I think so much of people feeling like, oh, worried about racism, oh, my gosh, this person's black. We need to make them feel good about themselves was basically how we got Obama, because Obama would have never won otherwise, had a lot of white people, a lot of conservatives felt like, oh, we really need this black president, man. Of course, Obama just fueled flames to the fire of racism and made people feel even worse about it all, I think. And now we're having to put. Put the pieces back together to say, you know, I guess like, we were talking about how maybe he didn't actually, you know, pass a law saying, oh, you know, this is racist. But he did influence the culture, and he influenced the country through being president for eight years. And so now we've had Trump on the stage for a while. I think we've kind of undone a lot of that, and a lot of people don't care, but we still had to deal with a lot of the effects of that. And the. The left was still, not that long ago, pushing the blm, the George Floyd, the black square, all of that.
- [35:01]
C
You know, this is. You and I talk about this sometimes, and that this is the sort of fruits of boomer psychology. But, but. But when. When we say boomer psychology, you know, and by the way, I disavow the boomers. I'm a very late, late boomer. I was born in 1961. Apparently the boomers go to, like, 16 or 64. So if I could, I'd get out of the boomer group and get into the Reagan group, which is really my group. But nevertheless, here's what I'm getting at. You know, the. The boomers lived through, like, Martin Luther King. Now, Martin Luther King was in many ways a very shady character. He had plagiarized his thesis. He was extremely promiscuous. Even after he got married. He was apparently in some ways a little bit. He had a little bit of Jeffrey Epstein in him. Him. And so he was a bit of a sicko. But on the other hand, he did stand for this principle of colorblindness. And so the boomers, like, clung to that, and the boomer conservatives as well. Right. Like, on the balance, his cause was a good one, even though he was a very flawed man. And so I think the assumption was that Obama would kind of turn out the same, that Obama was this guy who was sort of, yes, he'd be the first black president, but he would be reasonable in the way he governed. Now, Obama himself was, I must say, going back to 2008, extremely skillful in putting out this vibe. So it's not like the boomers were super dumb. It's that they spotted something and they thought, well, you know, this guy could be all right. This is not Jesse Jackson. It's not Al Sharpton. It's not one of these obvious shakedown artists. It turns out Obama was the worst of them. Worse than Sharpton, worse than Jesse Jackson, in part because he was able to. He had this con man routine. And so now we've exposed the con. And honestly, I played a role in that. Blowing the whistle on the real Obama and all the things that were. Remember when I did Obama's America, my book, the Roots of Obama's Rage, Even the National Review was like, dinesh, stop. Stop linking him to Africa. Stop talking about him as a third worlder. He's basically a classic traditional liberal who got his ideas at Columbia. All this kind of gobbledygook that was coming out of the right has now dissolved. Everybody understands Obama's con. In fact, every time he opens his mouth, it's like, here comes the con man. But we didn't think that way in 2008, but we've got his number now.
- [37:35]
B
Yeah, it's amazing to me the fact that conservatives did not see that before and a lot of progress is made, because, yes, now they definitely do. But it seems like at this point, we're so far beyond that in the sense that our country, it's divided our side, we don't even care about Obama anymore. We don't want anything to do with him. He's, you know, I guess to the extent he still influences the left, but on our side, I think we're kind of figuring out, yeah, how do we level up? How do we be as smart as maybe Obama? You know, he conned them. Not that we want to use his. Him as an example, but clearly he was able to influence the country at such a wide scale. Even beyond his legislation, just culturally. But I do think the good thing is that conservatism is influencing the culture more, too, because we are seeing, I think, more patriotism, more of maybe just kind of a return to some level of, you know, decency sort of on the right, a little bit more. A little bit more interested in, like, actual conservatism as opposed to the watered down version. So again, it's just kind of a subculture. It's still small. I think it's growing, though, and we're slowly, slowly getting more people on board with that.
- [38:48]
C
But it's a. It's a long way up and a long way back. You know, as you know, we talked about. We've talked about how even among the influencers on the right, there's so much like cultural wreckage and cultural debris, and we could give many examples, but we don't really need to. The point is that, and this is somewhat new, I think there is a recognition, more so now that there is a right and wrong, there is a better way to live. Traditional lifestyles have proven to give a lot of people happiness, even in countries that are very poor over many, many generations, in fact, over thousands of years. And so there's a recognition of human systems that just work better. And so even though people aren't really there yet, they still haven't, you know, they haven't made happy marriages, they haven't returned to church. They haven't figured out how to put their life in order. They at least know that the way that they have been living is a mess. They know that that's the wrong way. They're alert to the way in which they bought into it. So, for example, the superstitions of feminism, the stupidity of a lot of these sort of alternative lifestyles, all the idiocy about, you know, trying to find yourself by going and sitting on a sacred pillar or, you know, putting your legs across your neck in some kind of complicated yogic posture. So people are like, over all that nonsense. And there is this sort of awareness that I need to be kind of getting, getting back. So, you know, C.S. lewis says that when you're on the wrong road, progress means turning back and going back the way you came. And I'm not even saying that we've gone back the way we came, but at least we've seen something of a turnaround. And that's in the CS Lewis framework. That's progress.
- [40:34]
B
Yes, definitely. Well, thank you so much for joining us and looking forward to our next conversation.
- [40:42]
C
Sounds good.
- [40:43]
B
Well, that wraps up today's. Show. If you enjoyed the show, make sure to follow me on social media. I'm Danielle d' Souzagill and I will see you all tomorrow for the Danielle Gill Show.
- [40:55]
A
Here's something most people miss. Investors don't usually lose money because they're reckless. They lose money because they hear about opportunities after the biggest players have already positioned themselves. Major shifts often start quietly in policy meetings, regulatory changes, and capital planning long before they make headlines. Right now, AI isn't just a technology story. It's an energy story, a data story, an infrastructure story. And when government and major corporations move in the same direction, the biggest beneficiaries are often the financing and infrastructure structured channels behind the scenes. There's one opportunity built around that idea, designed to benefit from the AI buildout without trying to guess which company becomes the next superstar. To get the full breakdown, visit oxfordretire.com Again, that's oxford retire.com.