All Episodes
Previous Next
June 25, 2025 - Dinesh D'Souza
57:03
BIG RED APPLE Dinesh D'Souza Podcast Ep 1112
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Coming up, I'll discuss the prospects of the socialist and Islamic Zoran Mamdani to become New York's next mayor.
And if he does, well, I think he's going to sink the city, maybe for good.
Author and attorney David Limbaugh joins me.
We're going to talk about his take on Trump's Middle Eastern policy, what Trump should do to curb the interference of the Democratic judges, and also the interesting question about whether the Israel of today and the Jews of today are the descendants of the Israelites of old.
Hey, if you're watching on X, Rumble, or YouTube, listening on Apple or Spotify, please subscribe to my channel, hit the subscribe, the follow, the notifications button.
I'd really appreciate it.
This is the Dinesh D'Souza Podcast.
Music America needs its voice.
The times are crazy, a time of confusion, division, and light.
We need a brave voice of reason, understanding, and truth.
This is the Dinesh de Souza podcast.
Quoting from Trump, now that we have made all caps peace abroad, we must finish the job here at home by passing the great, big, beautiful bill and getting the bill to my desk, ASAP.
Trump goes on to say, no one goes on vacation until it's done.
And here you see Trump responding to those who said that he was somehow taking his eye off the ball, neglecting domestic issues.
Trump has never lost sight of that.
And as it turns out, it's not his domestic policy that's a detour, but rather the strike on Iran's nuclear facilities.
That was the detour.
It's like, okay, I got to attend to something over here.
Boom, boom, boom.
And now, hey, let's get right back to where we left off.
And this legislation, very important to Trump.
I've said before, my own views on it are somewhat mixed, but I think on balance, it is a good thing.
And it's also very good for Trump to have a legislative victory.
And the bill is chock full of Trumpian and MAGA priorities.
So let's get those enacted.
I think it is the objective of Jon Thune, the Senate Majority Leader, to get this done before July 4th, i.e.
to get it done next week.
And in that case, there's a little bit of reconciliation, and then it goes to Trump's desk.
So let's hope the votes are there.
There's a little bit of rumbling still going on.
But remember, the Republican majority in the Senate is safer.
It's 5347.
And then, of course, there is J.D. Vance of needed to break a tie.
I think it's going to go through.
Now, let's turn to the issue of the strike that I mentioned, Trump strike in Iran, because the New York Times and CNN are trumpeting that the strike did not achieve its objectives.
Here is CNN.
They're saying that a top secret classified document that evidently is leaked or its conclusion is leaked to CNN.
And by the way, the New York Times reporting the same thing, is that there was damage to the Iranian nuclear facilities, but the damage was not significant and most of these facilities remain intact.
Now, CNN would love to believe this.
The New York Times would love to believe it.
This is what you could call wishful thinking journalism.
And the way it works is that you want something to be true.
And so you pursue a path of inquiry that tries to find crumbs of evidence that it is true.
And in fact, you ignore all counter evidence.
Now, first of all, the sources in these articles are anonymous.
Second of all, no one has, certainly the public, seen this report.
Third, Caroline Leavitt says, fake news CNN strikes again.
Everyone knows what happens when you drop 14,000, 30,000 pound bombs on their targets.
Total devastation.
Carolyn Leavitt does concede that there appears to have been some sort of a leak.
And I saw further commentary on this from Pete Hegset, who basically said, look, we have intelligence on the ground that confirms that these bombs went off just where they were supposed to, just in the way they were supposed to, mostly happening underground, total success.
By the way, the Israeli Atomic Energy Commission today, or really just a few hours ago, confirmed, yeah, we agree that the mission did achieve its goals completely.
Now, the leaked document to the New York Times and CNN appears to be based on some satellite images.
And the satellite images are not from the ground, they're from the sky.
And not to mention the fact that I've seen images of Fordow and a couple of these nuclear reactors.
And from the air, aerial photography, the damage does not look to be total.
This is not like in the movies where the whole mountain is blown up.
The blowing up occurs inside the mountain.
The first bomb creates a crater, and the second bomb goes into the crater and blows things up below.
That's really what we tried to do.
And so I think what you have here is a strategy of attempted demoralization.
Oh, we tried and Trump is claiming success, but the reality is very different.
You know, these are basically the wishful thinkers at the New York Times and CNN.
And we know they're wishful thinkers because even if you watch their live coverage, I'm talking here about CNN, you could see the evident dismay on the faces of CNN hosts as their own reporters said the mission is a success.
They were looking like, oh no, we were really hoping it wouldn't be.
They looked genuinely pained to hear that.
Now, I want to focus today on this guy, Zoran Mamdani, 33 years old.
He is a young guy, pretty dynamic, I have to say, Asian Indian by background.
His mom, in fact, is a filmmaker, Mira Nair.
And I remember years ago, well, I mean, as a kid, watching some of her movies, typically Hindustani movies.
But apparently, Zoran was raised in Uganda.
So he's an African, sort of the Indian diaspora.
And he's Muslim.
And we now know a far left wing socialist.
I posted yesterday, quote, Muslim Obama.
Don't say I didn't warn you.
And I was posting, I was quote tweeting something that Zoran Mamdani put out where he goes, tomorrow is ours if we want it.
Doesn't that sound like Obama?
Tomorrow is ours if we want it.
The arc of history bends toward justice.
This is Obama.
And that is hope and change, Debbie says from the side.
And that's right.
You could see this guy.
In fact, hope is one of his big words.
I've seen hope at least three or four times in his rhetoric.
So he is the Muslim Obama.
Now, of course, some smart Alex go, Dinosh, what do you mean he's the Muslim Obama?
I thought you said that Obama was the Muslim Obama.
And these are the kinds of people who basically, you know, don't read my books.
They don't watch my films.
They don't know anything.
I've never said that Obama is a Muslim, let alone the Muslim Obama.
My point is that Obama is an anti-colonialist.
Now, I concede Obama's father, Barack Obama Sr., was born a Muslim, but he was an atheist for most of his life.
I think Obama, by the way, the same.
So Obama is like a clone of his lunatic father.
And his father saw Islam, as he saw a lot of other ideologies, as a way of battering the West.
And that's where Obama is.
For him, I think Islam is not a religious thing.
It is a political cudgel with which to beat America and beat the West.
This is why Obama is so happy to cook up to the degree he could the Arab Spring, why he wanted Iran to get a nuclear weapon, and so on.
Let's turn back to this guy, Zoran Mamdani.
He is being called both a jihadi and a leftist.
And which one is he?
I think he's more of a leftist than he is a jihadi, although it should be said, this guy is completely in bed, if you will, with care, with the Ilhan Omars of the world.
AOC, of course, is enthusiastic about him, but AOC is a really good example.
AOC really isn't exactly a jihadi, but AOC is a leftist.
AOC is a socialist.
And what kind of a socialist?
Well, an identity socialist, to use a term that I used in the United States of socialism.
And by identity socialism, I mean a kind of weird hybrid of classic socialism, the rich against the poor, the working class, the evil capitalists, the let's go after the billionaires.
That's classic Marxist rhetoric.
And the identity part of it is it's mixed in with advocacy of prostitution, a kind of sympathy for drugs, which I don't think Marx would have been on board with, a big LGBTQ agenda.
All of this is this guy, Zoran.
This is all part of his agenda.
Let's look at some of his positions.
Defund the police.
He's even talked about abolishing NYPD.
He's talked about abolishing prisons.
He's talked about abolishing private insurance, banning all guns, legalizing prostitution or sex work, safe injection sites, drugs, ending cash bail, ending cooperation with ICE.
So this is, I won't say this is the Democratic Party because the Democratic Party is a bigger tent than this, but this may be the future of the Democratic Party.
And I think I was looking at some of the interviews with young people who voted for this guy, and they're actually asked, do you want socialism?
And interestingly, most of them say no.
They say, but we're not voting him for that reason.
They say, he's one guy.
He's not going to bring socialism.
What can he do on his own?
What they say is, we like him because he's young.
We like him because he's cool.
We like him because he is going to take the battle to Trump.
We like him because he's a new generation of leadership for the Democratic Party.
So I think what the young people are saying is we are tired of the Chuck Schumers of the world.
We're tired of vodka Nancy.
We're tired of these hobbling older figures who, by the way, have been running the Democratic Party like it's their private plantation, right?
If you don't do what they say, they won't back you in your race and you're out.
I think at one point talking about AOC, I remember Nancy Pelosi said something like, well, a glass of water could win that race.
We don't need AOC.
We can transpose or output somebody else in.
They'll win.
So you can imagine how AOC felt hearing that from Pelosi.
So there is here a movement, I think, of the kind of young leftists to push out the old leftists because the old leftists are very left.
Nancy Pelosi did a lot to move the agenda leftward, even though she never purported to be all that far left.
Now, another reason for this Mamdani guy's win, when we say win, he's not the mayor.
He won the Democratic primary, but of course New York is a Democratic state, is he won over Andrew Cuomo, the former governor.
And I'm not going to be one of these guys, although I think Andrew Cuomo would have been better than this guy.
Andrew Cuomo is horrible.
I mean, Andrew Cuomo is, think of what Andrew Cuomo did under COVID.
You remember dispatching, basically letting all those people die in old folks' homes?
This guy could potentially have been prosecuted for all that.
And so I'm not going to shed any tears or show any sympathy for Andrew Cuomo.
I also think that Mamdani is defeatable.
This is not a fait accompli.
But to defeat him, you need a centrist candidate that can mobilize a fairly broad swats of support.
Who is that person?
Well, most likely it is Eric Adams.
Eric Adams is probably going to run, is going to run for sure.
And there are other candidates, Curtis Lewa and some others.
I just don't know if the other candidates have the ability to mobilize a coalition against this guy, Mom Dani.
But look, either way, New Yorkers get to dig their own grave.
And when I say dig their own grave, what I mean is New Yorkers get to decide if they want to go the way of, say, San Francisco.
San Francisco, once beautiful city, has in effect been ruined.
And I don't think it's going to really come back.
New York is not there yet.
New York is teetering, right?
New York has not been run all that well.
Lots of people have left New York for Florida.
Probably now there are some more people making airline plans or looking at Florida real estate.
Kind of a nice time, by the way, to own some Florida real estate because New York might drive the price further up.
But New York is salvageable.
It doesn't have to go the way of San Francisco.
And whether it does or not is going to be in the hands of the New Yorkers themselves.
This is a topic I'm going to pick up when Debbie and I do our roundup because this is a phenomenon that may be bigger than Mamdani himself and may be pointing to the fact that the Democratic Party, far from moving to the center, which would seem to be the natural and normal thing to do, is becoming further radicalized.
Trump country is booming.
We're building, hiring, and winning in America because energy tax credits put America first, bringing manufacturing jobs home and creating a stronger middle class.
Jobs and factories will come roaring back into our country.
More production at home will mean stronger competition and lower prices for consumers.
And America's comeback depends on American energy.
President Trump, keep what works.
Don't repeal energy tax credits.
Paid for by Built for America.
Are you looking to do something to better your health?
Well, we all are.
And look no further than Kimchi One from Bright Core Nutrition.
Now, Kimchi One packs all the fermented nutrition of kimchi in convenient capsules, arming your gut with over 900 unique strains of probiotics, supporting gut flora and digestion.
I highly recommend this product because all health starts in the gut.
So putting the right fermented superfood in your gut improves every aspect of your health, your skin, your hair, your mental performance.
Kimchi has even been shown to reduce your risk of obesity and promote smaller waistlines.
Kimchi 1 is all natural, made in the USA and non-GMO.
Today, you can get an exclusive offer just for my viewers and listeners, 25% off with code Dinesh by going to mybrightcore.com forward slash Dinesh.
Or even better, there's a special incentive if you call them.
50% off your order and free shipping.
So what do you have to lose?
Give them a call, 888-927-5980.
Their educated staff will answer your questions.
We'll make sure that Kimchi1 is right for you.
The number again, 888-927-5980.
Guys, I'm delighted to welcome to the podcast a friend, David Limbaugh.
He is the noted author and attorney.
In fact, he's a partner in a law firm that deals in entertainment, law representing radio and TV talent.
He was a nationally syndicated columnist with Creator Syndicate for two decades.
And he's the author of a slew of best-selling books, some of them political, some of them with Christian themes.
The latest one, by the way, The Resurrected Jesus, a book that he co-authored with his daughter, Kristen Limbaugh Bloom.
You can follow David on X at David Limbaugh.
David, welcome.
Thank you for joining me.
I really appreciate it.
Let's jump right into it.
We have a, well, we had a little bit of a MAGA fracas, didn't we, over Trump's actions in Iran.
I saw Trump posted today.
Okay, let's get back to the big, beautiful bill.
I actually want to ask you this.
Is Trump exiting the scene a little too early?
And what I mean by that is it looks like the mullahs are really tottering.
We haven't really seen this Khamenii fellow at all in recent days.
This regime may be on the verge of collapse.
Is this the time to sort of do a ceasefire and tell them everything is okay and in a way allow them to hang in there and maybe over time to consolidate their power once again?
Well, it is, of course, a concern, but we have to admit, and I've heard you say on your podcast, that people that have doubted Trump have found that he has pretty good judgment and he's pretty calm under fire.
And, you know, he's trying to thread the needle between pure isolationism and neoconism.
And he's neither one, as we've talked about.
America first does not mean America only.
It means putting America's best interests at heart.
And so the way he wanted to implement that was to rid Iran of its nuclear capacity.
And he believes he has done that.
We believe we have done it.
And I don't think they can, we also want to remove Iran as a generator of proxy chaos all over the world and against us.
But I think he's pretty much diminished Iran's nuclear capabilities.
And he's anxious to declare a truce and have a peace treaty because not only is he getting trouble within the Malgam movement, but Israel is, if left alone, may continue and that's going to cause problems.
Personally, if you ask me, I'd like to see Israel continue and just totally decimate them.
I don't want to get into nation building or any of that.
I really want to fall short of that.
I would hope we could do whatever we can to enable the Iranian peace movement, liberty movement, to thrive and to go forward.
But we're not going to do that because Trump has announced for decades that he's against this nation building, and he's staying true to his promises and his purposes.
So even if he faults and errors on the side of not going as far as he could, I think he's staying true to himself.
And I think we are largely protected given how he's emaciated him at this point.
There's no permanent solution with Iran absent a regime change with a government that's in our favor.
And I don't think it's practical to do that right now.
So I'm pretty happy with where we are.
Yeah, so am I. I mean, I think the way maybe I would put it is that the American people don't want boots on the ground, and Trump is not even dreaming of going there.
The American people don't want the United States to be like over there trying to form a post-mullah society where we're kind of bringing the tribes together and trying to create export democracy or something like that.
And I think Trump is, that's a complete no-no as far as Trump goes.
Maybe where we are is that regime change is not something that is a conscious goal of the United States.
But of course, it's something that you and I, I think, would welcome, right?
And these mullahs have been a plague since 1979.
And if they would be gone, what comes after, even if we have nothing to do with it, is sure to be better.
I can't imagine how it could be worse.
And therefore, I would hope that that will happen eventually.
It's been the most oppressive regime for the last 50 years or more.
And there is a strong Iranian peace movement, liberty movement there.
People have risen up before, and I think they will continue to.
And I think because we've destroyed some of the main leaders in Iran and we've humiliated the Ayatollah, I think the winds are blowing in our direction for that, and I'd love to see it happen.
But again, Trump is trying to stay true to himself, and he doesn't want to go too far on that.
He was all for doing the deception to accomplish his military goal.
But I don't think he wants to betray his campaign promises.
Let's turn, David, to the domestic front and this big, beautiful bill.
And in some ways, we had a similar kind of disagreement about it.
I think the disagreement is perhaps more one of emphasis than anything else, because there's no question that the big beautiful bill contains just a number of spectacular achieve goals that Trump campaigned on, right?
It's got money for ICE, and it's just got a package of good stuff in there.
However, it does not put a big dent on the spending side.
I think this is really why Elon Musk got a little frustrated.
At least he threw a kind of a temper tantrum over it.
And then many other people said, oh, we should sink the bill and get rid of the bill.
I think that the Big Beautiful bill also represents Trump being true to himself.
Trump has never been that much of a sort of aggressive budget cutter.
He definitely wants more efficiency.
But on the other hand, he'd rather get these other priorities through than get into a spending battle where maybe he thinks he might get a little bogged down.
I couldn't agree more.
And I've heard some of your recent podcasts, and they've been brilliant and right on the money.
I've been concerned forever that Trump's one Achilles heel is that he does not have an allergy to debt like a lot of us do.
And I think that's historical because he's lived in debt.
He's been comfortable with it in the private sector.
And he's not that concerned.
He may be concerned, but when he announced that he wouldn't reform entitlements no matter what, and I understand why you can't get elected in this world of political demagogues on both sides of the aisle if you say that you're going to reform Social Security and all that.
But I do think the math dictates that we eventually have to reform entitlement spending because there's not enough discretionary spending.
And the interest on the debt alone is eating up increasing levels of the GDP.
And I heard your comments that the debt is a percentage of GDP.
We might reduce that like we did with Reagan by growing the economy more.
But I still say eventually the math is going to have to, the math dictates that we will ultimately have to reform Social Security because that's where all the money is, and we can lie to ourselves all we want.
It's not politically feasible now.
So I don't blame Trump for doing this, but the math is the math.
And eventually we're not going to be able to grow out of it.
And it horrifies me about our kids and grandkids.
But I don't fault Trump for this.
He's doing exactly what he said he was going to do.
He is implementing policies that are growth-oriented and all the priorities he advocated, defense, border.
He has been remarkable in what he's already accomplished in terms of what he promised to accomplish.
I mean, tangible results on the border, tangible results on inflation, on drilling, on oil, and the rest of it, the things you've ticked off.
So eventually we're going to have to do it.
But I love what we're doing.
And we cannot allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good.
And I'm so frustrated with people like Massey in Congress who refuses to understand that you have to pass legislation incrementally, especially when you've got such a very narrow margin of Republicans.
And you have so much trouble herding these cattle.
We've got to get that done.
And Elon Musk didn't realize that we had to separate the discretionary from the mandatory spending.
And he finally understood that.
And now he's back in the fold to some extent.
So we're trying to implement Doge in a separate bill.
And I think all is good as long as we keep going.
Trump keeps mounting these victories.
We don't get complacent.
And we understand we've got to keep our eye on the ball and keep these purists who I would agree with in abstract and in theory, but it doesn't work in the real world.
David, you're an attorney, and let's turn to this business of all these 600 or so judges.
Now, obviously, some of them are Republican appointees, but you got the Biden judges, the Obama judges, the Clinton judges.
And these guys appear to have decided, hey, listen, we're just going to start knocking over these Trump actions, regardless of how squarely they fall in the domain of the executive branch.
At the very least, we get to buy some time.
We get to stop Trump in his tracks, and maybe we'll be overruled later.
Is something wrong with our system where judges have the ability to essentially run interference for months, if not maybe the first year of a presidency, and cripple the president by just saying, you can't do this, you can't do that?
In fact, you can't do anything without our say-so.
Well, it's interesting.
The Constitution can't answer every question black and white, but I think it gives clear Article II executive power to the president, and the courts have encroached.
But you know, you remember John Adams said the Constitution is made for only immoral and religious people.
And part of what that meant, in my opinion, is that if people get in power and they don't honor the Constitution, forget as a matter of law, they just don't honor it as a matter of morality, because they're power mad and injustifies the means leftists, which we see, we're going to have trouble.
But what I think needs to happen is that the executive needs to stand up, even irrespective of the court, and say, I have co-equal power, in fact, superior power in the Constitution as to these matters, i.e.
foreign policy and some other things, and I'm just going to ignore your ruling and then hope simultaneously that the Supreme Court will fast-track one or more of these cases and finally give a issue a global ruling that says we're not going to allow a minuscule, singular district court judge to issue an order that has national validity and implications.
That's got to stop.
And John Roberts, I think, is sometimes afraid of his shadow.
And I agree with you that he's not a liberal or anything.
Then he looks to the calmness and the honor and the sanctity of the court.
But sometimes he's too cautious.
And in this case, the court's got to be passive.
They can't go out and make a case.
They're a tribunal.
The judiciary has to hear matters of cases of controversies that are presented to them under the Constitution.
But there are plenty of those out there ripe for decision.
And they need to grab this and issue a ruling that says, stop this, no more of this.
This district court can't do it.
No district court can do it to issue a ruling that has national binding implications.
That's got to happen.
Very interesting.
Let's take a pause, David.
When we come back, I want to draw on your expertise on a very interesting question that was raised in the conversation recently between Tucker Carlson and Ted Cruz.
And we'll pick that up when we come back.
Hey, I'm a film guy, and let me tell you, are you tired of perverse and destructive Hollywood content flooding your television screens?
I am too, and that's why I've joined the Angel Guild community.
I wanted entertainment that inspires and informs and uplifts, but doesn't drag us down.
Now, with Angel Guild, I can vote on upcoming films.
I can support movies that reflect values I align with.
Plus, I get early access to inspiring content.
I no longer have Hollywood entertainment pushing its agenda into my home.
Angel Studios is leading the charge, creating high-quality, faith-filled films like Sound of Freedom, Cabrini, and Homestead.
These movies are powerful, impactful, and a must-see if you haven't already.
Now, if you want to make a real difference, where we put our dollar shapes the future of entertainment.
So let's support content that amplifies light and protects our kids from harmful influences.
Join me in making a difference today.
Visit angel.com forward slash Dinesh.
That's angel.com forward slash Dinesh to join the Angel Guild now.
There's been a real national focus on eating only the healthiest of foods.
Good development.
And that's great news also for Balance of Nature.
Why?
Because their method of producing a vibrant nutritional supplement is second to none.
While so many others use chemicals and additives, Balance of Nature is made solely from whole food ingredients.
This is what the bottles look like.
It's fruit and veggies in a capsule, very easy to take.
Now, while other methods sacrifice nutritional quality for the sake of profits and volume, Balance of Nature's advanced vacuum cold process involves freeze-drying the fruits and veggies into a fine powder, helping to retain as much nutritional value as possible compared to other inferior methods which cut corners at your expense.
Balance of Nature packs a nutritional punch, and that's the whole reason for taking Balance of Nature, getting the most nutrition for the sake of your health.
Use my discount code, America.
You get 35% off.
You also get free shipping and a money-back guarantee.
Call 800-246-8751.
That's 800-246-8751.
I'll go to balanceofnature.com.
Use discount code AMERICA and you'll get 35% off plus free shipping.
I'm back with the one and only David Limbaugh.
Follow him on X at David Limbaugh.
His latest book, The Resurrected Jesus, co-authored with his daughter, Kristen Limbaugh Bloom.
David, let's turn to something that I think is very interesting.
A question posed by Tucker to Ted Cruz.
And Ted Cruz really, I didn't think, wanted to kind of get into it, so he sort of sidestepped it.
But it's this.
The Bible says that we as Christians should bless Israel.
Tucker agrees.
But Tucker then says, but hey, are you telling me that the Jews today, the Israel under Ned and Yahoo, is that really the same Israel as the Israel of the Old Testament?
Are these the same Jews who are truly descended from Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob?
And I thought, if there's one person I'd like to hear on this topic, well, I wanted to ask Ted Cruz's own dad, of course, who is a pastor and who married Debbie and me.
But I said, David Limbaugh, that's going to be our man to throw some light on this issue.
So help us think it through, David.
What's the scoop?
I totally believe the modern-day Israel is directly descended from Abraham.
It's not even debatable.
The question is whether God's promises to Israel and his covenants with Israel have been replaced by the church, by the Christian church.
That's what the so-called replacement theologians or supercessionism people or fulfillment people believe.
They don't like the term replacement.
But they say that the church has replaced Israel in God's plan.
And by the way, I'm not going to purport to be an expert, but even the experts can't say definitively.
There's a legitimate argument on both sides.
And I think the reason there's some confusion is because there are many promises that God made to Abraham in the so-called Abrahamic covenant to bless Abraham, making a nation out of him, bless those that would bless Israel and curse those who would curse Israel, and then give the land to the physical Israelis as their nation of Israel, as its everlasting possession.
Now, to me, the fact that the promises of blessing that come through the Jews apply to the Gentiles does not mean that the land promise applies to the Gentiles and that the church has substituted itself for Israel.
The Abrahamic covenant, the land promise was unconditional.
It was eternal.
It was ceremonially validated by God putting Abraham to sleep and causing something to go through two dead animals.
It used to be in history that two covenanting parties would go through, pass through two animals, and that would signify a covenant.
God put Abraham to sleep, and he did it alone, which means that it was a unilateral, unconditional covenant.
Now, the fact that Israel has been displaced from the land through the years does not mean that God did not honor his promise.
The promise was that Israel would own the land, not that it would always possess it.
And he even said in the Bible, throughout scripture, that if Israel was disobedient, he would remove them from the land.
And that happened through the Babylonian captivity.
And it happened then after in Rome.
When Rome dispersed the Israelites in 70 AD, they were dispersed for 2,000 years.
But here's one of the most goose-bumping things that has ever occurred in human history.
And that is despite Israel being dispersed for 2,000 years.
And despite the fact that any other ethnic or national group that has been separated for five generations has never returned to itself, the Israelites, the Israelis returned in 1948 to the promised land, the very land we're talking about, by, I think, what is a miraculous superintending action of God.
And they have been in that land since 1948.
And notice something else.
They're not just in that land, which is as small as maybe a large United States city, or you could say the size of New Jersey, if we don't exaggerate.
And they have thrived in that city despite having no natural resources to speak of and having a small population, being surrounded by Arabic nations that hate them and who are dedicated to their destruction, and yet they continue to thrive militarily, technologically.
We saw what they did in the 1967 and 1973 wars with all those countries against them.
Again, they miraculously destroyed them without even a problem.
And here we are again, with all these countries still after them, although it's a little less now, with Iran after them.
Look at what they've done.
They've humiliated Iran technologically with the phones and that type of thing and all their intelligence.
I look at Israel and I don't even worry about Israel.
I worry to the extent that the United States, I think, has to help because God works through his people.
And I think we're honored bound to help Israel.
But I'm not worried about Israel because God has them.
And he's not going to allow them to be defeated.
He, again, returned them in 1948 after 2,000 years.
And he's going to ultimately fulfill his prophecies through Israel, through that covenant people.
And by the way, Dinesh, another thing.
When people say that Israel and the church, that the church can be substituted for Israel, look at Romans 9 through 11 in the New Testament, where Paul talks about in Romans 11 that Israel is the natural branch, and we, the Gentiles, have been grafted in.
And we better not become too cocky because then we'll be cursed too.
We have to recognize that we're only in there because Israel, God blessed us through Israel.
And Israel, Paul hopes that Israel will return and he promises ultimately they will be blessed again and part of God's blessing.
And he wouldn't be talking about the church and Israel as discrete, distinct entities if they weren't.
And he's talking about what's going to happen in the future.
And all the Old Testament prophets, by the way, predicted Israel would return to the land.
And they made these predictions like 500 years before the Romans kicked them out in 1970.
And here in 1948, we're back.
I don't see how you can't believe it.
Even if before you rejected the idea that Israel would return to the land and that it was now the church, you can't deny what history has done.
God will not be denied.
And he's not going to be, his promise isn't going to be denied.
And he's not going to substitute the beneficiary of his promise for another beneficiary because he never said he would.
And he always said he would bless the Gentiles along with the Jews through the Abrahamic covenant and through the blessing of the gospel.
But he never said he was going to replace the land promise in Israel.
So I feel very strongly about it.
Again, I respect those who disagree, but I'm comfortable with what's going on, and I'm not saying I'm sanguine, but I'm pretty confident that this is going to continue and that Israel is going to continue to thrive until the end times.
And wouldn't you say, David, that the reconvening, I mean, first the dispersion of the Jews and then their implausible return back to the place that they were in before, this is predicted in the Bible.
So since it's predicted and since those same people, who, by the way, we know were very tribal wherever they went, right?
When they were in Spain, they stayed to themselves.
If you read Shakespeare, the Jews are all living to themselves.
They maintain their tribal identity.
So these same people come back.
It's not as if the promise could be interpreted as applying to some other people.
Who else would it be?
So to me, this is not even a question really open to serious dispute.
Now, what is open to serious dispute, of course, is the fact that we as Christians don't follow all the dietary prescriptions of the Old Testament.
So in that sense, there is a new covenant, but the New Testament in no way either supplants or makes obsolete the old.
Isn't that right?
Exactly.
I made this exact same point in several of my books.
And the fact that the new covenant, it didn't even replace it, it fulfilled it.
The old covenant.
And the New Testament is alongside with the Old Testament is the full Bible.
And the fact that the new, well, the New Covenant did replace the Old Covenant, but the fact that it didn't do it because the Old Covenant was wrong, it did it because its time had passed.
But that doesn't mean that then the promise to Israel as to the land is abrogated.
It's two separate things.
And I want to point out one other thing that I think is probative here.
But it's less objective.
It's more subjective.
And that is this.
I notice, as we all do, a rise in global anti-Semitism and in American anti-Semitism.
And I dare say that these anti-Semites, even in the United States, are unapologetic about it.
You wouldn't see any group other than some KKK, which doesn't even exist anymore, even racist as to African Americans.
You wouldn't see any of these people have the guts to do this publicly.
And yet people in universities, leftists, and now some people on the right, have a smug contempt for Israel and the Jews, and they hate them, and they announce it proudly, despite the fact that we haven't seen any kind of Holocaust worse than the actual Holocaust.
And we promised it would never happen again.
And yet, here we are.
They're trying to make it happen again.
And I would point out that that's because, and you may think I'm a little weird on this.
I think it's because it's a spiritual matter.
Israel is God's, the Jews are God's chosen people.
The people who are not of God can smell that.
They have an allergy to those things that are not of God, so they have contempt for them.
And I'm not talking about your garden variety atheist or somebody that's not just automatically hostile to God.
But I'm talking about these political, religious forces that hate the Jews and will do anything to destroy them.
That, to me, is itself further proof that they are God's chosen people.
And the fact that they try and they can't get anything done just solidifies it even more in my view.
But we're ignoring this anti-Semitism and how dangerous it is.
And now it's reared its head on the right.
I will say, and I want to be cautious about this, not everybody that disagrees with any of the things we've said today is an anti-Semite.
I'm saying you're an anti-Semite if you're an anti-Semite.
You're not an anti-Semite if you disagree with my position on replacement theology.
There's legitimate arguments on both sides.
But if you look at Twitter, for example, look at X, you see some of these people on the right who are so hateful toward Jews.
It's embarrassing.
It's disgraceful.
I don't want those people anywhere near the right.
And I don't think Tucker's one of them.
I think he's misguided on this issue.
But I don't want to call him an anti-Semitic.
I'm not going to call anyone that, Although I recognize them when I see them, and by their words and their actions, you can know them.
And I think it's disgraceful.
And I think God will deal with such things.
Very powerful stuff.
Guys, I've been talking with the one and only David Limbaugh, author and attorney.
Follow him on X at David Limbaugh.
David, what a pleasure.
Thank you very much for joining me.
Thank you.
You're always one of my favorites.
Our friend Mike Lindell has a passion to help everyone get the best sleep of your life.
And he didn't stop just by creating the best pillow.
He also created the best bedsheets ever.
These are the Giza Dream bedsheets.
We use them.
We love them.
They look and feel great, which means an even better night's sleep for me, which is important for my busy schedule.
Now, Mike is offering the best deal ever on his Giza Dream bedsheets, any size, any color, just $49.98.
That's right.
You can get queens, kings, split kings, cal kings.
Like I said, any size, any color, just $49.98.
But order now because when they're gone, they're gone.
Also for a limited time, when your order is over $100, you get $100 in free digital gifts.
Call 800-876-0227.
Once again, it's 800-876-0227 or go to mypillow.com.
Don't forget the promo code, D-I-N-E-S-H Dinesh.
When you use that promo code, you're going to get the amazing offer, $49.98 on the Giza Dream Sheets, any size, any color.
I am now beginning a new section of Ronald Reagan, How an Ordinary Man Became an Extraordinary Leader.
I've covered, in brief, Reagan's economic policy, and now we are going to turn to foreign policy and the Cold War.
And the chapter, chapter six, is called Confronting the Evil Empire.
Now, we are some distance away from the Cold War, and a certain historical amnesia tends to set in.
It's a relief that the Cold War is long gone.
And because it's long gone, it doesn't seem to really matter.
And because of that, we lose a sense of the magnitude of what that Cold War victory represented.
On July 4, 1990, Mikhail Gorbachev was at Stanford University.
Now, Mikhail Gorbachev, as it turns out, is somebody that I once met.
And I wanted to interview him for this book.
And, of course, he doesn't speak English or very good English.
In any event, he had an interpreter named Pavel Chenko.
And I was really talking to that guy, not to Gorbachev.
And I had him make a comment about Reagan, which he did.
And it's in the book, and we'll get to it later.
But for now, Gorbachev is at Stanford University.
He's giving a speech.
And he talks about his policies of glasnost and perestroika.
Glasnost, you might remember, but you might not, means opening.
And this was the opening up of the Soviet Union and the Soviet Empire.
Perestroika means something closer to reform or fixing something.
And then Gorbachev very startlingly said, the Cold War is over.
And everybody starts applauding.
That's understandable.
They're applauding with evident relief.
But then Gorbachev says the key line, and let us not fight about who won it.
And then there is thunderous applause.
The crowd like goes into raptures.
Thousands leap to their feet.
They applaud, and they don't stop applauding for a while.
Now, if you think about it, this is actually very odd, right?
An odd behavior on the part of the audience.
Why?
The collapse of the Soviet Empire, now quoting the Sovietologist Martin Malia, was, quote, a total implosion of a sort unheard of in history.
A great state abolished itself utterly.
Here's Zbigniew Brzezinski.
By the way, Zbigniew Brzezinski is the dad of Mika Brzezinski, the woman we see now on Morning Joe.
And I've got to say that the dad was a big improvement over the daughter, but that's a topic for another day.
Here's Zbigniew Brzezinski, who is, by the way, Jimmy Carter's a national security advisor.
He says the defeat of Soviet communism was, quote, an outcome no less decisive and no less one-sided than the defeat of Napoleonic France in 1815 or of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan in 1945.
So I think what you're getting here from some very smart people is that large perspective of what happened and happened really within our own living memory.
So with it, with the collapse of the Soviet Union, the most ambitious political and social experiment of the modern era ended and ended in failure.
And the supreme political drama of the last century, which was the conflict between the West and the totalitarian East, came to an end.
We are dealing now with new rivals, China, new conflicts, but it's not the same as what we dealt with before.
What will prove to be probably the most important political event of our lifetimes happened and happened toward the end of the last century.
Now, again, we have some perspective since I wrote this book.
There's been, of course, 9-11.
There's been all kinds of stuff since then.
But again, nothing of comparable magnitude.
9-11 was a significant event.
It inaugurated the era of radical Islam striking right here in the United States.
But even 9-11, with its 3,000 casualties, traumatic though it was, is nothing compared to the prospect of a nuclear battle between the United States and the Soviet Union, a battle involving tens of thousands of warheads blowing up major cities.
The prospect is of an entirely different order.
Now, given all this, given the significance of what happened, it's natural to say, Well, what caused it?
What brought it about?
Now, you can understand why Gorbachev doesn't want to talk about that.
Let's not fight about who won it.
This is kind of like the guy who's flat on the canvas after an MMA fight going, well, let's not discuss like who lost and who won.
I mean, that's in the interest of the guy who got a resounding defeat to like want to move on or deny there was even really a battle.
But what's really mysterious is when the winners in the Cold War don't want to talk about it either.
The Stanford audience showed like a striking lack of curiosity about a question of fundamental importance.
They were, in fact, determined to change the subject.
To use an old ad from the National Enquirer, inquiring minds didn't want to know.
Now, I mentioned the Stanford audience because their reaction or its reaction was typical of the American liberal intelligentsia.
In an era where we want to know things, right?
We want to know, how did this plane crash occur?
Let's do a post-mortem.
But no one did a post-mortem on the Soviet Union.
The Russians didn't do one.
We didn't do one either.
And this is in sharp contrast to the major post-mortems after World War II.
All the, well, the Nuremberg trials were a kind of post-mortem.
Let's see what really happened.
All the chasing down of Nazi war criminals.
The we must never forget.
All of this is so different from the approach toward the collapse of the Soviet Union, which could be summarized this way.
We must not remember.
Now, why?
What's going on?
I want to suggest, and this is my thesis in this book, virtually everybody was wrong about the Soviet Union.
That's why no one really wants to talk about it.
Now, when I say virtually everybody was wrong, I mean everyone on the left and pretty much everyone on the right.
Let's go into it.
Now, let's start with the doves.
The doves were the appeasers, by and large, the Democratic Party, the left.
The doves were wrong on every point.
They showed a terrible understanding of the nature of communism.
They misunderstood the objectives of the Soviet Union.
Their strategy wasn't just flawed.
It was the exact opposite of what was required.
In fact, if we had followed the prescription of the doves, which is to sign arms control treaties, to scale down our own nuclear weapons, I think that Soviet totalitarianism may well have been saved.
It might well be intact today.
Now, let's turn to the Hawks, because the Hawks were, in a sense, the ones who seem to have been proven right, but I want to emphasize the word seem.
Why?
Because they had a better understanding than the Dubs of Soviet totalitarianism.
They had a better strategy of meeting the Soviet threat, but even they were sorely mistaken about what steps were needed, particularly in the final stage, and by this I mean Reagan's second term, to bring about the actual dismantling of the Soviet Empire.
So my point is that this is why the intellectuals don't like to discuss all this.
They were essentially all mistaken.
They all got it wrong.
It's very difficult for intellectuals to admit that they're wrong, and it's equally painful for them to admit that Reagan was right.
The...
Thank you.
The key thing here is that Reagan had a very interesting strategy, and I'll pick this up next time and go into it in some detail, of dealing with the Soviet Union.
And it wasn't a singular strategy.
It was a two-part strategy, and the two parts went kind of against each other.
So in the first term, Reagan was very tough when the Doves said, this is terrible.
Don't do the buildup.
But the Hawks said, do it.
So the Hawks were right.
But in the second term, Reagan switched.
He pivoted.
He began to support Gorbachev.
He began to pursue arms control agreements.
This would seem to be more congruent with what the Doves had been recommending.
And the Hawks were like, Reagan, you're an ass, you're a fool, you're walking into a trap.
So this is the point I'm trying to make, that Reagan, in retrospect, turned out to be right.
And not only that, he was the only one who turned out to be right.
The Doves were flatly wrong in general, but they were especially wrong in the first term.
The Hawks were right in the first term, but wrong in the second term.
So Reagan was the one guy, the one guy, who got it right all along.
Subscribe to the Dinesh D'Souza podcast on Apple, Google, and Spotify.
▲
Export Selection