All Episodes
Previous Next
July 3, 2025 - Dinesh D'Souza
01:01:03
GOD AND AI Dinesh D’Souza Podcast Ep1118
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Coming up, Debbie and I are here for our Thursday roundup.
Why Thursday?
Because tomorrow, Friday is the 4th of July, so no podcast.
We'll pick it up on Monday.
Anyway, we're going to be talking about, well, my Nick Fuentes debate from earlier in the week.
The peculiar connection between God and artificial intelligence.
The ups and downs of the big, beautiful bill, why liberal and conservative justices are really two different species.
Why so many young people are attracted to socialism?
And the rage of the victims over the Brian Koberger plea deal.
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.
Especially, by the way, if you're on YouTube where I think I'm being suppressed, so I'm trying to unsuppress myself, you can help.
This is the Dinesh D'Souza Podcast.
Music America needs this voice.
The times are crazy.
In a time of confusion, division, and lies, we need a brave voice of reason, understanding, and truth.
This is the Dinesh D'Souza podcast.
Debbie and I here for our Friday roundup.
And as I mentioned a moment ago, tomorrow is the 4th of July.
So no podcast, but I want to, you know, take a moment.
I think we both should as immigrants and just celebrate what the United States has meant for us, but has also meant for the world.
It's been a country that has done more good, I think, for the world than any other superpower.
It has been the kindest, gentlest sort of top dog in world history, much better than the British Empire, which came before it, and certainly much better than earlier empires, whether it's the Ottomans, the Romans, and so on.
And it's also made, I think, a very good life for so many people.
I think what makes people nervous now is the fear that this American dream, which is the representation of this American idea, is fizzling out for so many people.
I think that's the whole driving force between make America great again.
Any thoughts on the 4th and what else to say about it?
Well, I love the 4th, but it is kind of funny that I was just telling you before the podcast that we have not been in America the last two 4th of July because we were in British, we were in enemy territory celebrating the 4th of July, which is kind of funny because we were in Great Britain watching Wimbledon.
And so this year we're going to have finally our 4th of July in America.
In Texas, in fact.
Yeah.
Yeah, no, absolutely.
All right, let's talk about something that happened earlier this week.
Something that you were, I have to admit, ambivalent about, to put it mildly, namely my debate with Nick Fuentes.
Generally, when I say, hey, honey, I'm thinking of doing this debate, you are not too happy about it.
But why is that?
Well, I don't like to watch you debate at all.
Anyone.
Yeah, that's true.
Now, it is kind of funny because I watched you debate Bill Ayers on Megan Kelly, but that was really not really a debate because, you know, I think it was you and Megan Kelly against Bill Airport.
Well, we each had a shot at him.
She did sort of, you know, her show was two hours.
I believe it was two hours.
Maybe it's special, but I don't remember how long it was.
Yeah, she's like part one, you debate Bill Ayers, and part two, she was doing this like searching investigative interview with him.
That's right.
But, you know, I told Bill Ayers, I was the one who brought him on that show, and I told him, I said, hey, are you up for this?
Because, number one, we'll have a feisty debate, but it'll be.
It's really funny how you, you know, you debate these people, but you are not like mean-spirited.
You're not mean to them.
You actually are not unfriendly to them.
Right.
And I think with Nick, it was no exception.
And, you know, I just, I don't know anything about him, but just watching some of his clips, I couldn't watch.
Let's put it that way.
I just couldn't watch.
Well, I've seen the same clips, and I thought that's the Nick Fuentes that I would be up against.
And I was kind of ready for it, but because there is a way to respond to that kind of wisecrackery and that kind of making light of serious issues, there is a way to handle that.
But as it turns out, that Nick didn't show up.
The Nick who showed up is someone, well, I mean, look, the guy is passionately anti-Israel.
I would say he's not exactly like a Hamas apologist, but he's very much on the, he's in a way making the case for Iran.
Well, they're being reasonable.
They're threatened, Dinesh.
And, you know, since Israel has nuclear weapons, if you were an Iranian, wouldn't you want to have nuclear weapons?
Hey, even after the American strikes, there really weren't any Protests on the Iranian street.
Now, think of how naive that is.
The regime controls the street.
This is like saying, you know, the Soviet Union must have been really popular because I didn't see a lot of protests on the streets of, you know, Moscow or Leningrad.
Yeah, that's because the regime controls all of that.
You don't see a lot of protests today in China, kind of for the same reason.
Well, I like how you got him on MAD, you know, with mutual assured destruction, because unfortunately, Iran is not going to partake in MAD.
Well, yeah, so let's just set a little bit of context.
Basically, what Nick was saying is, well, yeah, the Iranians say debt to America and all that, but we don't really take him seriously because, you know, they may claim to be a death cult.
They want martyrdom.
But the Soviets were also a death cult.
And we heard a lot about that.
And I was like, Nick, nobody ever said the Soviets were a death cult.
Whatever you said about Lenin or Stalin or Chernenko, Brezhnev, Andropov, all of them, nobody said they were suicidal.
Nobody said that they wanted to be martyrs.
In fact, the whole idea, you mentioned mad, mutually assured destruction, is premised on the idea that both sides want to protect their lives.
They don't want to die.
Neither one of them wants to destroy their life.
It's a Mexican standoff between heavily armed adversaries.
It's mutually assured that they will both be destroyed.
And therefore, neither of one will take the steps to put themselves in that kind of danger.
Yeah, that was the whole premise of the Cold War.
But, you know, guess what?
I mean, Nick's 26.
So think about it.
He's born, I guess, 1999.
All of this is, for him, ancient history.
And not only that, I mean, look, I could say that World War II is ancient history, but I think in our generation, we loved history.
You know, we immersed ourselves in history.
And for me, history meant everything going back to the 5th century BC and before.
But I noticed that with the younger generation, one of their favorite phrases is back in the day.
Back in the day.
Why did they say back in the day, meaning our day?
Yeah, back in the day means even like the 1990s is back in the day.
You know, let alone the 70s, let alone World War II.
So, you know, there is a myopia there.
And I think in some ways that showed in the debate.
You know, I mean, Nick had his points and he's a very articulate guy and well-informed in his own way.
He knows detailed information about the Wahhabis in Saudi Arabia and so on.
But his knowledge is short in the sense that it sort of stops at about 2009.
Yeah, true.
I wonder what his parents think of him.
Because, you know, his parents are probably our age, right?
I hear that he's, you know, obviously you and I, we don't watch him.
And in fact, one interesting thing before this debate was, you know, a couple of people mentioned to me, you may want to go back and watch his videos.
And then I was talking to Danielle and she goes, you know, Dad, don't do that because you don't need to be artificially prepared for the debate.
You just go on there as if you have heard of Nick Spaguantes, but you don't know who he is.
And that is what I did.
I did not watch a single of his videos except the little promo where he goes, I'm the alpha male.
None of these con ink guys want to debate me.
So he kind of had this big, you know, Dinesh is up for a big surprise.
Of course, by the end of the debate, he was singing a totally different tune.
He was very respectful.
He's like, Dinesh, you're a great debater.
And so I think it was a, well, chastening experience is maybe too strong a word.
But my goal in doing all this was really more to, well, first of all, to try to reach some of these people who buy into the, you know, Israel is controlling the United States.
I thought, let them at least hear the other side of that.
And number two, just to give a backhanded rap to all these taboos and all this effort to squelch free speech and affirm the idea that it's better to have it out.
I mean, that we're not afraid to have it out and we still believe in the classical liberal idea that the best ideas are going to win.
Yeah.
Well, this definitely was not reminiscent of when you went to Michigan State and that lunatic got up and started yelling at you and yelling at me.
Using the F word.
Using the F word.
And I lost it.
I literally lost it.
Well, he, because he actually attacked you personally.
He attacked me personally.
He wasn't just attacking me.
No, and I literally was.
I think you stood up and you said something like, sit down.
I did.
And then he was like, get out of the country.
And then you were unhinged.
I was unhinged at that point.
And this is one reason why I don't like watching you in the middle of the day.
Well, I think you thought this one would be like that.
Yeah, I can't.
And I didn't know, really, to be honest.
But as I say, Nick was, well, first of all, you know, I was wearing a polo shirt, one of my, you know, Vineyard Vines shirts.
But Nick came with a, Nick came with a, no, I'm wearing a Nautica today, but Nick came with a tie, a little jacket.
And so he looked like a little preppy, a little young.
In fact, you know, he looked kind of the way I looked when I was his age, right?
Because I was doing that kind of thing, not with the same point of view, but nevertheless.
Long time ago.
A long time ago.
And we had Alex Jones as the moderator.
Now, Alex is a little bit in Nick's camp.
And I think Alex was getting a little frustrated because the case, the attack on Israel, really wasn't going all that well.
And I was making points like, look, you know, are you actually saying that the little Satan controls the great Satan?
I mean, certainly that's not what the Iranians, right?
The Iranians see it that the great Satan is the big problem.
And the great Satan has a little helper called Israel.
That's the little Satan.
And I made the point, how can a country that is made up of, what, 10 million people roughly, control a country of 350 million that is vastly bigger, vastly stronger, vastly richer?
It makes no sense.
It's like saying that you have a mosquito that's controlling the elephant.
At most, the mosquito can slightly irritate the elephant.
and then I finally said, Well, listen, if you're truly saying that this tiny Israel, the size of New Jersey is controlling the United States, then the Jews must really be the master race.
And I think at that point, you know, Alex was like, well, I'm looking at the feed and, you know, everybody's anti-Israel.
Well, everybody's anti-Israel in part because they've been listening to you and Nick Foetes.
I mean, I was very much in that, in his milieu.
And you didn't go into the whole spirituality and miracle of Israel either, which I think I would have done because that's, you know, I don't particularly care for people that can't see that for what it is.
Well, you were making a point in the car, which I think is worth mentioning, and that is that you said, look, it's not that I'm pro-Israel, it's that I'm pro-God.
You're like, my motive is not the interest of Israel per se.
It is to kind of follow the direction of God.
Well, it's God's land.
Right.
And it's God's people.
Right.
Period.
End of story.
Right.
So you're, but yeah, now I didn't go there.
I approached that destination because somebody actually, I had not really mentioned biblical archaeology, but someone brought it up.
And they were like, what makes you say that the Jews are like the original inhabitants?
I mean, they're like, I mean, they just actually kind of gifted me that question, right?
By the way, one of the funniest questions came up toward the end.
A guy calls up from the American Communist Party.
And in a way, this was extremely embarrassing to Nick.
I'm sure wasn't the Democrats and anything.
No, no, he's, I'm on the American Communist Party.
And he goes, Nick, he goes, you're such a wimp.
He goes, you keep talking about how the people in Gaza are being mistreated.
And you keep talking about how Israel is so awful.
He goes, why aren't you openly on the side of Hamas?
Why aren't you openly on the side of Hezbollah?
Why aren't you openly, I don't know if he went this far, but why aren't you on the side of al-Qaeda and ISIS?
These are people trying to fight the oppression of Israel and the oppression of the West.
Now, Nick was kind of writhing in his seat because, see, Nick doesn't really, Nick's whole point is I'm like a Catholic, I'm America first.
He doesn't want to come across as like, I like these brown Muslims.
You know, that'll make him sound too Ilhan Omarish.
And so, and yet, what the American communist guy was saying is the logic of what you're saying is that when people are oppressed in the way that you say, they're going to try to reclaim their dignity by fighting back.
Maybe they'll get shot, maybe they'll get killed, but at least they died, you can say, standing on their feet and not, you know, prostrate on the ground.
And so Nick had a lot of difficulty coping with this question.
It was in a way one of his uncomfortable moments in the debate.
Well, by default, he actually is on the side of Ilhan Omar.
Well, I mentioned, I talked about Ilhan Omarism, and I also talked about Obama.
And I essentially said that he was not just a Democrat, but he was echoing, think of what Obama said about Iran, right?
Iran does not have necessarily nuclear aspirations.
And even if they do, we can talk them out of it.
We can deter them through a signed piece of paper, namely a treaty.
So I basically told Nick, you're saying what Obama's saying, minus the pellets of cash.
So that's your difference with Obama.
Obama sent them pellets of cash.
You wouldn't do that.
Otherwise, you agree with Obama, basically 100%.
And that was not good.
Nick was like, well, I've never been called a Democrat before.
I don't know where this is coming from, Danesh.
And then, of course, he went to something which I think was equally bad for him, which is the two parties are the same.
Oh, yeah.
Which think about it.
Well, yeah.
And I was like, look, you know, we all sometimes indulge in the rhetoric of there are people on both sides who drink at the swamp.
But to claim that there's no difference between Trump and Biden or Trump and Kamala Harris, to claim that the country, let's say right now, in the last six months, would have been the same if Kamala Harris was the president.
See, he was forced to say yes, it would.
And that is patently absurd.
So anyway, those are just a few highlights.
Microplastics, small pieces of plastic are now everywhere in our food, our drinking water, even our air.
A new study shows 94% of U.S. tap water and bottled water worldwide contain microplastics.
Microplastics are in 88% of our meat and seafood.
Even if you eat clean, you're still taking in plastic and it's damaging your health from the inside out.
These particles pass through your gut barrier, they enter your bloodstream, they trigger a wave of oxidative stress, which scientists now link to inflammation, mutations, and even cancer.
BPA in plastics is known to disrupt hormones, damage DNA, and is now even showing up in the human brain.
But there's hope and it starts in the gut.
Kimchi-1 from Bright Core Nutrition is one of the most powerful natural detoxifiers on the planet.
It contains a unique probiotic strain proven to degrade BPA, plus over 900 other strains that help flush toxins, restore gut health, and support your immune system.
This isn't just about digestion.
It's about protecting your future.
Right now, my viewers and listeners can get 25% off Kimchi1 with code Dinesh at mybrightcore.com slash Dinesh.
But even better, if you call, you get 50% off plus free shipping.
Here's the number, 888-927-5980.
You'll also get a free bottle of vitamin D3, but only when you call.
Here's the number again, 888-927-5980.
When I flip a container around, I can't pronounce It or recognize the ingredients?
Well, I just put it back.
And that's why you'll find balance of nature's fruits and veggie supplements on a shelf in my home.
Every single ingredient is a fruit or veggie plucked from the soil.
Take a look.
These are the fruits and veggies in a capsule.
Really easy to take.
By the way, no binders, no additives, no artificial colors, no fillers, just whole fruit and veggies, gluten-free and vegan-friendly.
These harvested ingredients are freeze-dried into a fine powder using an advanced vacuum cold process to better preserve nutritional value.
I can say with absolute confidence that I'm getting 31 ingredients from fruits and veggies every single day with Balance of Nature.
Imagine a platter with 31 different fruits and veggies on it every day.
Join me in taking Balance of Nature.
And here's a really good deal for you.
Use my discount code America.
You get 35% off plus free shipping and a money-back guarantee.
Call 800-246-8751.
Again, 800-246-8751 or go to balanceofnature.com.
Use discount code America and you get 35% off plus free shipping.
Let's talk about something else.
Artificial intelligence, which I've talked about earlier this week, but I saw something really interesting that was a comment that was motivated by a video made by, of all people, Taylor Lorenz.
You remember her?
She's sort of this social media writer for the Washington Post.
In any event, the idea here, we'll just talk about the idea.
Don't worry about Taylor Lorenz.
The idea is that some people are treating AI as a kind of secular god.
And what I mean by that is AI is a kind of distillation of human knowledge, right?
You pose a question to it.
It sort of, not only does it forage the internet, so it has a wider body of information than any individual, even group of individuals has access to, but it then collects this information and formulates an answer.
And so AI gives you kind of this view from on high because it's not your view or my view.
It's not all-knowing.
It's kind of all-knowing, omniscient, you know, to use another word.
Now, in reality, AI is not that because AI has built-in algorithms.
That's how you can get woke AI.
Why?
Because woke people made it that way.
It's programmed to give you woke answers.
But it's not programmed in a sort of a 2 plus 2 equals 4 mode.
It's programmed in, these are some reliable sources you can consult.
And think of it, if your reliable sources are like Axios and the Daily Beast and the New Republic, then that's where AI is going to go digging for information.
So, but you had a thought about this sort of godlike aspect of AI, which was a little different from all this, but ties into it.
Yeah, I said, you know, when you were talking a couple of days ago about it, I go, you know, the way, oh, because how AI can turn on humans, right?
Can make, can, can essentially eradicate us, right?
And I thought to myself, well, you know, in a weird way, you know, God, God made the world, God made us, and some of us have turned away from God.
In other words, some people think they're better than God or smarter than God.
And they basically fight back, right?
They fight back to God.
And so AI, I feel like if it does that to us, it's treating us like we treat God.
Very, very important idea.
Now, I would go even further and say that it's not some of us.
It's actually all of us.
And by that, I mean, let's look at the meaning of the Garden of Eden, right?
In the Garden of Eden, God says, basically, don't eat from the tree.
Now, the way I understand that is it's not that God, notice that God doesn't give any reasons.
God doesn't say the fruit is bad for you.
He doesn't say that.
He says nothing.
It's like because I say so.
It's because I say so, right?
Because so what God is basically saying is that I'm God.
I made you.
You should understand that because I'm the creator, I know what's best for you.
So I'm telling you, don't do this, right?
And what do they do?
They go and eat.
Right?
So that's their way of saying, no, we don't, you know, God, thank you for your plan, but we're going to go with our plan.
And our plan is rational.
And I say rational because the serpent appears and the serpent says, well, listen, why wouldn't you eat?
The reason God doesn't want you to eat is because that way you may become like God.
And God doesn't want you to become like him.
So it's a way of him keeping you down.
So Satan offers all these ingenious arguments.
Now, some of these I'm giving you, by the way, not from the Bible directly, but from Milton's marvelous rendition of all of this in Paradise Lost.
But anyway, Adam and Eve think, you know what, it makes sense for us to follow our own plan, which I think is by and large the position of the human race.
And this is what the Bible means when it says all have sinned.
What it means is not that we all necessarily commit particular sins, although we do, but rather all of us think that our plan is better than God's plan.
In fact, even our prayers, I think, are proof of that.
Why?
Because our prayers are always, hey, God, listen, whatever idea you have for me, I have a better idea.
How about if I get an A on my exam?
Oh, I have a better idea.
How about if I find a pot of gold in my backyard?
Oh, how about if I get a promotion?
Wouldn't my life be better?
Wouldn't you agree, God, that this update to your plan is really a good one?
Whereas if you truly prayed, you'd be like, God, you have a plan for my life.
Whatever that is, let's have that.
I want that.
God's will be done.
God's will be done.
Because no plan I can come up with could possibly compete.
Well, and look at his plan.
His plan was to send his son to die for the very sins he knew we were going to commit in the first place.
Right, right.
And I think what that shows is that God's plan in the end was even better than the original plan.
Now, it's hard to speak in this way because, of course, God is not in time.
So, I think when God made the world, he already knew that the world would be fallen.
He already knew that it would need a Redeemer.
He already knew what he would have to do.
He knew all of this simultaneously.
It's a very profound concept when you reflect on it a little bit.
All right.
AI, we hope, goes in the right direction.
Let's move on to some somewhat more prosaic topics.
The Big Beautiful Bill.
The Big Beautiful Bill.
And this, you know, unpleasant revival of the clash between Musk and Trump.
It like flared up again this past week.
Almost a replay of what happened a few weeks ago when I thought that they had both kind of like buried the hatchet, at the very least decided, let's kind of go our own ways.
And now suddenly, again, Trump is like digging at Elon.
Trump is like, we may want to take away his subsidies.
You know, somebody even asked, you know, do you have any plans to deport him?
Oh, no.
You know, this is just too much, as you say.
You like to say too much.
I like to say it's too much or he's too much.
Right.
Yeah.
Which is what you said to me about the Fuentes debate.
You're too much.
So, but I think it's a good thing that this bill is going to go through for all its flaws.
I mean, it's not an unflawed bill.
But you know why it's an unflawed bill?
Because we have a flawed Congress.
Yeah.
Right?
We do not have decisive majorities, let alone supermajorities.
And so I said on the podcast yesterday that the real solution for Elon is not to start another party.
And you are on the war path against anybody who talks about starting a new party, unless it's the communists, right?
Yeah.
So, you know, sometimes I like to troll Communist Party USA website.
Don't ask me why, but I do.
And their big thing is they want another party.
And I was like, that's a great idea.
A party for the left wing.
Why not?
It'll divide them up and they can never win.
Once they do that, they can never win.
So, but when I hear it coming on our side, I cringe because I think of Ross Perot and I think of the Ross Perot effect and how it is that Elon Musk is such a brilliant mind, he can't see this pie being divided that way.
I kind of don't understand that.
Could it be that what happens sometimes, I think, is that you allow a personal affront to take over and cloud your reasoning a little bit.
It's not that you're not capable of the reasoning.
You completely are.
But what's happened is it's like sometimes when, you know, let's just say someone in the family even unintentionally says something deeply hurtful, right?
It so blinds you that you are so focused on that.
I think with Elon, he has a sense of being betrayed by the GOP, not even so much by Trump, because I think he knows that Trump has to make the best of the situation he has, right?
But I think Elon thinks, guess what?
The Congress, we have majorities in both parties.
Couldn't they have done more to consolidate Doge?
Couldn't they have done more to keep the deficit down, at least make a serious effort?
After everything he did, they're like no real effort at all.
Now they're doing other good things.
They are 10,000 new border agents and make the tax cuts permanent.
But I think Elon's point of view is what happened to the one issue that I was concerned about, I was then kind of officially deputized to do.
And I did at great cost.
Yeah.
Well, I mean, but also, though, doesn't he understand that if he were to bring in a new party, the America Party, as he calls it, the only people that it's going to hurt are the very people that want fiscal responsibility.
This is the first time.
Because the Democrats don't know what that is.
And there is no way that if the Democrats win by default, because we self-destructed, that we will ever have fiscal...
They are.
Even today, if you look at what Democrats are saying, they're saying things like, and I mentioned this earlier this week, John Hickenlooper, he's like, it is very shocking that the wealthiest country in the world cannot provide free health care to everyone, right?
And by everyone, it's a very carefully collected, a very carefully considered word.
He doesn't mean citizens.
No, he means everyone.
He means everyone physically in this country.
So he wants the 10 million illegals brought under Biden to get free health care.
And it's all based on the premise that we're so...
I think they're being taken off by the bill, which is a good thing.
At least some of them are.
Now, the point is, how can a country that is $37 trillion in debt talk like this?
Right?
How can a senator speak with a straight face in this manner?
It's like a guy, even if he lives in a nice house, you know, a guy lives in an expensive house, but he's, let's just say, $10 million in debt.
And he sits around with his family.
He goes, given that we're the wealthiest guys in the neighborhood, we have the nigh tallest house, you know, why don't we, like, you're like, stop talking nonsense.
You know, you're in the hole.
But that's how they talk, liberals, the left, Democrats.
The left, right.
They talk like that because they do truly believe money grows on trees.
They truly believe that.
Do you think that's it?
Or do you think that they know it doesn't?
But they don't care about running the country off the cliff.
Their focus is in the now, is in the vote.
Is in the Santa Claus activity.
Yes, exactly.
Right?
Is I gave you free health care.
And by the way, a lot of these guys who do that kind of thing get statues in Washington, D.C. Right?
in fact, you go all over West Virginia, there are statues of Robert Byrd, Robert Byrd School, Robert Byrd Highway, Robert Byrd Medical Center.
Why?
Did Robert Byrd fund any of this?
No.
What he did was looted the Treasury and allocated the money to this.
And that's why there are statues of this guy who was a terrible person.
Well, you know, we know, yeah.
We know why.
He's history in the Klan.
We've depicted him in our movies.
And by the way, he's a mentor both to Obama and to Hillary by their own admission.
So, but look, I think the good news is that this big, beautiful bill, for all its flaws, is going to go through.
Big win for Trump.
And Trump is getting a lot of other wins now, like the Supreme Court win on the nationwide injunctions.
That was a really big one.
Yeah, it was.
So, yeah, so jurisprudence.
Yeah, let's talk about that because our next topic is the court.
And you are making a point, which I want you to italicize about the fact that we often look at the court and the media covers the court.
There's the left wing, there's the right wing, right?
And so they do a scorecard.
Well, in the recent session, the conservatives were in the majority 85% of the time.
No surprise, it's a conservative court.
But your point is, hey, those classifications are kind of misleading.
Now, why is that?
Yeah, because you cannot count with 100% certainty how the so-called conservative judges are going to vote, are going to go.
You can, however, count on the liberals because they do stick together and they do a form of activism that our judges never do.
They just never do because they follow the Constitution and the left-wing judges do not.
They really don't.
It's the dead, what is it called?
The dead form argument and the live argument.
Oh, yeah, you're right.
Our side believes the Constitution is dead in the sense that you have to follow the Constitution as written.
And they believe it's a living constitution.
It's a living constitution that can be changed according to the times.
And what you're really saying is that if you truly had a left-right court, then just as the leftists do leftist things, our side could be counted on to do right-wing things.
That's right.
But let's look at an example because I think this will dramatize and clarify what you're saying.
Let's say, for example, and this wouldn't happen, but it's a hypothetical.
Let's say that the U.S. Congress passed a law that gave all kinds of benefits and subsidies to trans people, right?
And that law went before today's court.
What would happen is the conservative majority would say that we have to be deferential to the legislature.
We may not approve of this law.
That's right.
It may have all kinds of socially bad effects.
It was like gay marriage.
Gay marriage, but right.
I mean, they left it to the states.
No, in fact, with the gay marriage decision.
It was.
They decided that the states could not restrict gay marriage and that gay marriage is a constitutional right.
That's what they decided on the gay marriage decision.
And we at the time did have a majority, did we not?
We had a majority, and yet the conservative majority went on that.
And so you're saying that our side plays by the rules and their side votes left-wing.
Their side, the judges act as if they are like senators.
That's right.
And our judges act like judges.
So you're saying that these are not ideological equivalents.
They're not.
They're two different species.
Yeah, I think that's a very important point for people to do.
And that's why when they get mad at like, you know, Amy Coney Barrett, they're like, oh, look, she's going rogue and she hates Trump and all of this.
And obviously, she is probably not partisan at all.
She's probably not, I mean, she may vote Republican, but you know that she's probably not a hack, a partisan hack.
She basically goes back to the founding, to the Constitution, and that is how she rules.
She's a constitutionalist.
She's a constitutionalist.
And I think, by the way, so is Roberts.
Now, Roberts, because he's the chief, he sees his job as protecting the integrity of the court as a whole.
It's almost like he has another job.
Right.
It's not just to be a justice.
Yeah, because Obamacare really threw me on that one with him.
Right.
Because a true reading of Obamacare would have struck it down.
Yes.
But it's almost like what Roberts did was he's about to strike it down, and then he finds a loophole.
He does.
And he creates the loophole.
He doesn't even find it.
He creates it.
And he basically says, well, you know what?
If it's a mandate, it would have to be unconstitutional.
But guess what?
It's a tax.
What if we look at it as a tax?
Yes.
Well, Congress obviously has the power to tax.
So that's legitimate.
So I think that's a case where...
We know that.
On the contrary, the people who put it forward, Obama included, said, we want to make it very clear that this is not a tax.
This is, in fact, we are just going to make the insurance companies do this.
It's a mandate.
And then Roberts goes, well, actually, you're mistaken.
If you make it a tax, then we can get this through.
Which I thought was a little bit of a treasonist act on his part.
He was very bad.
So I was like, I thought, okay, he's a constitutionalist, but I think he went too far there.
I think he literally gave it to him.
He gave it to him on a silver platter.
Yeah, and I think he did it out of political motives for sure.
I think Amy Coney Barrett, a lot of people have realized with this latest opinion, Is on the side of the angels.
I mean, she's one of the good ones.
Now, again, I wouldn't say she's not as reliable as Alito or Thomas.
But guess what?
There are others who aren't either, right?
So our majority is not a majority.
You could say on the hard right, you've got a spectrum.
Roberts, I think, is the closest to the middle.
Then come Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett.
Yeah.
And I would put...
Right, good point.
Yeah, that's...
I mean, as far as, you know, some people are really far right.
Some people are more center.
Some people are more like in the middle.
Well, you often say that you're a mainstream Republican, you know, that you're not.
Because sometimes I think people have a wrong idea that somehow the Trump base, I want to talk about this term for a second, the base.
Because even when Trump bombed Iran, there were a bunch of people, you know, he's alienated the base.
And I'm like, no, he's actually not alienated the base.
The base is the mainstream of the Republican Party, right?
If you look at an election, how does Trump get to 51%?
The simple truth of it is Republicans straight out provide him with about 45% or 43%.
He needs the other seven or eight to get over the top, right?
And so the independents, the new black voters, some of the MAGA, the newcomers to MAGA who aren't traditional Republicans, that's where you get the seven to eight.
But that's not the base.
Who's the base?
The base is basically the soccer mom, the small business guy, the evangelical Christian or the regular church-going Catholic, the patriot, the military family or the veterans' families, the guy who's a cop or retired cop, small business owners and entrepreneurs.
This is the true base of the Republican Party.
And you're saying they can't be put on one specific point.
They're a spectrum too.
It is a spectrum.
Yeah.
I think more so than the left.
I think the Democrats have really gone to the dark side, pretty much all of them.
Well, I think that the rank-and-file Democrats are still a spectrum.
But what happens, I think, is the Democrats have created a political machine where, let's say if you're running for Congress and you're a centrist Democrat, they will tell you, we'll give you lots of money.
You can run as kind of center-right a campaign as you need to to win.
But we, on critical votes.
We control you.
We control you.
We're going to tell you how to vote on the big ones.
And we don't care if it offends your constituency because we want to get the legislation passed.
In the end, the Democrats are about the legislation.
Sometimes I think we are too focused on re-election.
We need to get the laws passed.
The laws are long-lasting.
We need to use the Pelosi principle.
The Pelosi principle.
Pass the law and then let the election chips fall where they may.
Mike Lindell and the employees of MyPillow want to thank you, my viewers and listeners, for your continued support.
Mike has a passion to help everyone get the best sleep of their life.
He didn't stop with just the best pillow.
He created the best bed sheets ever.
And I want to talk about the percale bed sheets because there's an incredible offer.
You can get a set for as low as $24.98.
The MyPillow Perkale sheets are breathable.
They have a cool, crisp feel.
They have deep pockets to fit over any mattress.
They look and feel great, which means a better night's sleep for me, which is important for my busy schedule.
Also for a limited time, when your order is over $100, you get $100 in free digital gifts.
Here's the number to call, 800-876-0227.
Again, it's 800-876-0227 or go to mypillow.com, use promo code Dinesh.
You're going to get the per kale MyPillow bedsheets as low as $24.98.
All right, let's talk about Zoran Mom Dani and young people, why they are attracted to socialism.
Why do you think that is?
Well, because young people, a lot of young people think that the government is there to give them things.
But why do they think that?
Like you and I didn't think that.
We didn't think that.
Well, I think also just, look, movie stars, singers, entertainment community, they're all on that side.
So it makes it cool to be on that side.
Right.
And a lot of, you know, like Hollywood people, remember they used to go to Venezuela and they used to tout Ugo Chavez's socialism.
Danny Glover.
Yeah, Danny Glover, of course, Sean Penn.
They would go down there and say how wonderful Hugo Chavez was because he was giving to the poor.
They never once, and I, by the way, think that they were paid by Hugo Chavez to do this.
I think that.
Oh.
Okay.
But never once did they think, well, who are they getting the money from?
Who are they, you know, who are they robbing?
Right.
Right?
Not only that, but I think they never asked this simple question.
If Hugo Chavez was a man of the people, he's a man of the poor, how did his family end up with...
Right.
Yeah, how did they end up billionaires?
I don't know if it goes unnoticed because, by the way, it happens to Democrats here, right?
Nancy Paul.
They get really rich.
They're exorbitantly rich.
The Clintons have made off like bandits.
The Obamas are sentient millionaires.
So all these men of the people and women of the people are making pretty good.
Yes.
So yeah, so the kids, the younger people, they think, first of all, tell me one person in America that says that they're socialists and live like socialists.
Right.
Show me.
Right.
Who does that?
Who rejects all capitalism?
Right.
Right?
Who doesn't have a bank account?
Not only that, like, who doesn't have like at least two homes?
Yeah.
Let's start with Zoran Mamdani.
his family has more than two homes.
Okay, let's start with Bernie Sanders.
He's up to three.
I'm sure he's thinking about number four.
Right?
The Obamas we know built on Martha's Vineyard.
That's not their only home.
They have Calorama in Washington, D.C. They don't live like communists or like socialists.
They don't.
But people are so dumb.
It's almost like, you know, I always talk about Jim Jones and the people that drank the Kool-Aid.
Well, Jim Jones also drank the Kool-Aid, so he died with them, right?
But the Kool-Aid-drinking Democrats, socialists, they're the only ones drinking the Kool-Aid.
They're more like the Jim Jones who says, listen, guys, come down to Guyana, right?
He hands out the Kool-Aid and he slips out the back door by emptying everybody's pocket.
That's right.
They themselves don't drink the Kool-Aid.
Well, this in some ways is also true of the mullahs and the Iranians.
$25,000 if you're willing to be a suicide bomber.
And one of those young guys goes, hey, Khameni, listen to me.
I'm 24 years old.
I have the rest of my life ahead of me.
You're 86.
Why don't you be the suicide bomber?
Oh, no.
Allah doesn't want it that way.
I'm going in a bunker.
I've been hiding in my bunker.
That's right.
Yeah, no, not me.
So these guys, it's just that I think that they are so uninformed and they think it's really cool to be a socialist.
And they don't understand what being a communist or being a socialist actually is.
They don't realize that it's equal misery.
They don't get that.
Now, there's a second factor which is more sympathetic to young people.
And I think that's this.
The biggest decision that young people make at that age is the issue of the ratio of what they are earning, i.e.
their salary, their take-home salary after taxes, and their mortgage payment, right?
Because that's your single biggest expense.
I mean, think back.
At a young age, we had to pay rent.
That was our biggest expense.
Later, you have a mortgage.
That's your biggest expense.
Maybe your car is your second biggest expense.
So in our generation, it used to be the case that you could buy a house.
I'm trying to remember what I paid for the first condo that I bought.
About $200,000, I think, as I remember.
I was renting before that.
But with a quite modest salary, I was able to make that mortgage payment.
And then, of course, that went up in value.
I sold a condo.
I took the profit.
I made a down payment on an actual residential house.
We could do that in our generation.
Not that it was easy.
No.
But it was doable, right?
I think what's happened is that because of inflation, it may be 2% or 3% a year, but it adds up, right?
So over 30 years, these homes that were $200,000 are now like $700,000.
Our kids can't do that.
That is what's sad.
They need our help.
Well, that's what I'm getting at.
So look, there are families who are included, but a lot of people, you know, are on their own.
And they basically say, for me to buy the same kind of house, not that my parents maybe even have at the age of 60, but that my parents had when they were my age.
A starter home.
I can't do it.
It is out of reach.
And not to mention, these young people also have exorbitant student loan debt.
And so I think socialism for them is not an ideology.
It's a necessity.
It's a life raft.
Yeah, yeah.
It's like, well, how can I get some help?
This guy's coming along.
He's going to freeze the rants.
Oh, great.
He's going to build more housing and just like give away homes.
Oh, great.
Yeah.
Right?
Yeah.
That's true.
That's true.
The idea of not having to struggle is like, to them, great.
Like, hey, you know, this person is telling me that I'm going to have like really cheap rent.
I'm going to be able to live and not have to worry.
Why not vote for him?
Right.
So I think.
And you don't, when you're, when you're in that situation, you don't calculate like, where is it coming from?
No.
Like, you know, you gave me an interesting example, which was when you were much younger and your mom had seen an ad for one of those, what do you call it?
Timeshares.
No, no, but anyway, I'm not going to go into it, but here's why it's funny and here's why it's applicable, right?
Because your mom was like, hey, listen, let's go and listen to this presentation.
And they tell you very clearly, if you listen to this presentation, sometimes they put you up for a few days.
Not only do you get put up for a few days, but you get a free TV.
Oh, you got a free TV, right?
Okay, so here you go.
So what I'm getting at is it never crossed your mom's mind.
In fact, why should it, right?
It crossed my mind.
It crossed your mind, but not your mom's mind.
Like, where's the TV coming from?
Like, how do they...
Where do they get a TV to...
And they can surely afford to give away a TV up front if they can.
Because they can get enough people to do it.
They can get enough people to do it.
So that's the answer to the question.
But my point is, psychologically, the person getting the benefit doesn't worry about where the resources are coming from.
Or care.
And same with Mom Dani.
Nobody's asking Mom Dani, like, where's the money coming from?
I even talked about the fact that he's got this grocery store plan.
There is no money.
It's fiction.
But people don't care.
And in a way, I don't even think he cares because he may not even do it.
He's like, let me get across the finish line.
I'll worry about it then.
That's true.
Let's talk about Brian Koberger.
Because this is a case that has intrigued you.
You're more informed about it than a lot of people, by the way.
And I think you were, well, talk about a little bit about your dream because the reason is, I think it's pretty fascinating.
And you and I had a conversation about, you told me about this dream because the dream had a lot of details about the murder, Right, that have never been publicly released.
And I told you, I go, listen, I don't know if you're clairvoyant, but I said, but look, but look, I said, listen, we'll have a trial.
All this new information that we don't know as of yet will come out, and you can then match it up against your dream and see if your dream is indeed prophetic, or was it just an imaginative rendering of how it could have happened, bearing no necessary relationship to what actually happened, but now you'll never know.
Unless he says, right?
Unless he confesses it.
Right.
Yeah, no.
And this dream I had, what, last week or two weeks ago?
I think it was maybe, yeah, it was a couple weeks ago, right?
Yeah, so I dreamt that he killed these young people and I could see it very clearly how he did it.
So it was a really graphic dream.
It's like you were present.
Like I was watching him do this, right?
And he killed the two girls first, and then he killed the other girl, and then he killed the boy in my dream.
I don't know if that's how it actually happened, but that's in my dream.
And he was very meticulous about how he left the scene.
However, of course, he did forget that sheath, right?
But he goes to his car and he had, and there was this big box of the Clorox wipes, you know, one of those barrel-looking things.
He takes it out.
He starts like cleaning his gloves.
He starts cleaning all kinds of the seat.
He takes off his, all his, he had like a little like outfit on on top of his clothes.
And he puts it all in this black plastic bag and he puts the knife in there too, ties it up, drives off, making sure that nothing is, he cleans his steering wheel, he cleans his seats, everything, drives off, and it looks to me like it's another town.
I don't know how far in my dream, he's driving.
He stops, and he basically takes the bag and he throws it in a dumpster.
And I was looking in my dream, I was looking to see if there were any cameras that could have captured that.
But he dumps it in a dumpster.
And then he's on his way.
And of course, you know, I see him driving around and everything.
And I wake up and, of course, my heart rate, I mean, at this point, I'm like, why on earth did I dream something so weird?
Well, not only that, but as, you know, normally dreams have a, well, they have a dream-like quality.
And there's often when you, even when you recall them, there's not a lot of detail.
But here, there were, there's a lot of detail, in fact, including, as you say, the order of these murders and stuff.
And so then when I told you, I guess it was yesterday, well, a couple of days ago, maybe now, you know, he's done a pleading.
Yeah, yeah.
And of course, the families are super mad.
Well, actually, half.
Two of the victims' families are super mad, and they say that the state has failed them.
Yeah.
Right?
The other two, the girl and I believe the one of, I can't forget.
Well, it might be the girl and the boy.
Yeah.
They say that it spared them from a trial.
Oh, right.
And we've seen other cases where people have that view that it would be very traumatic.
But I think with regard to the Gonzales family, and I think it's the Cernodle family.
Yeah, the Cernodle family.
Those families wanted this guy to get the death penalty.
Yeah, they did.
I think they, and you told me that in Idaho, it's the firing squad.
Yeah, firing squad.
Oh, yeah.
I think they wanted to see him on a, you know, on a firing squad.
Yeah, in front of a firing squad.
Let me explain why this, I think, is why their expectations are reasonable.
You know, every time you go to a movie and you see just a typical movie where a murder mystery, a gangster movie, a horror movie, doesn't really matter.
Some horrific things are done and you see them.
And at the end of the movie, you notice that the bad guy or whether it's a monster, they are never like the cop arrests him and puts him in a car.
The monster has to be obliterated, put into smithereens.
The bad guy has got to like fall off a 30-store building or be thrown off a cliff and then, you know, not only thrown off a building, but then he's got to land on a taxi.
He's got to land where some, you know, some spoke goes through his body.
Now, why is that?
The reason is that the human psyche wants retribution.
The eye for an eye concept is deeply built into our idea of justice.
And so I think for these people, I bet you that if you really sat them down, they would say the firing squad is not enough.
And in fact, you said, I think, last week.
Yeah, and I was lectured about it too.
My young son says, mom, as a Christian, you can't do that.
You have to have love for people.
Well, okay, but here, I don't agree with that.
And here, let me tell you why.
Christianity moves in two steps.
The first step has got to be the full acknowledgement of what has been done wrong and the full recognition of what the correct penalty is.
So let's start with that with regard to God.
For God, what is done wrong is human sin.
And the penalty fully justified is damnation for every human being.
Think about that.
Far worse than a firing squad.
Far worse than doing to them what they did.
Far worse.
Eternal damnation is just.
Once you have gotten there, then the person who has been wronged, God, can say, but I forgive, I exercise mercy.
But notice that all of this would be meaningless if God were to say to you, what you've done is not that bad.
You don't deserve damnation.
Basically, it's something I'm going to overlook.
It's no big deal.
It didn't even matter to me what you did.
Why would I care if you sinned?
I'm God.
It doesn't affect me whether you sin or you don't sin.
But God does not take that view.
God starts with an eye for an eye.
And it's almost like saying God starts with the Old Testament and ends with the eye.
It's a starting point.
It's a starting point.
And similarly, here, we always begin with what is the just outcome in the situation.
Now, the families can come forward and they can forgive him.
The state is in a different position, by the way.
If you commit a crime against the state, the state has to, on behalf of the security of the citizens, is in a little different position.
The state can't forgive in the same way that if somebody steals money from the wallet, you can forgive them.
In this case, the state used the death penalty as a bargaining tool.
Yes and no.
The reason I say no is because I think that my understanding is that a jury is instructed that if you're going to give the death penalty, there need to be no mitigating circumstances.
Now, I think if Kohlberger stands up in his trial and goes, I admit I did it.
I shouldn't have done it.
Something came over me.
I had these weird delusions about, let's say, being a serial killer.
I fell into this trance where I thought I was Bundy.
I did it.
I'm really sorry.
I want to apologize to the families who are here.
That's mitigating circumstances right there.
So I bet you that the prosecution goes, if he's willing to plead, that's all he needs to do is stand up and say that.
And all the expense of the trial.
In fact, the trial will be a kind of defeat.
You convicted him, but he didn't get the death penalty.
So as long as there is this at least apparent contrition, we might as well.
And we know in court, he did plead guilty to all four counts.
He will get a life sentence for each one of them without the possibility of parole.
But I told you that he's going to use this like he's going to have fan mail.
He's going to get a girlfriend.
You mean like the Menendez brothers?
Yeah, yeah.
He's going to live it up.
He'll have the criminologists that he was a criminology student.
He's going to have them writing him letters.
Fill out a survey.
Yeah, yeah, I think so.
So you don't think this is the last we've heard of Brian Colbert?
I don't think so.
I don't think so.
Because if you think about it, why did he do this in the first place, if not notoriety?
Yeah, you're probably right.
Subscribe to the Dinesh D'Souza podcast on Apple, Google, and Spotify.
▲
Export Selection