All Episodes
Previous
Nov. 11, 2025 - Dinesh D'Souza
58:13
MORTGAGE FOR LIFE Dinesh D’Souza Podcast Ep1209
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Is the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians the revival of an ancient conflict recorded in the Bible?
The nation of Israel is a resurrected nation.
What if there was going to be a resurrection of another people, an enemy people of Israel?
The Dragon's Prophecy.
Watch it now or buy the DVD at thedragonsprophecyfilm.com.
Coming up, when is this shutdown going to end?
I'll give you my best outlook.
The 50-year mortgage.
Is that something that we're really going to be dealing with?
I'll tell you the pros and cons.
I'll also talk about how it took the Olympic committee so long to figure out something that humanity has known for millennia.
And Prager U co-founder Alan Estrin joins me.
We're going to talk about a new book about the presidents who did the most to shape America.
Hey, if you're watching an X-Rumble or YouTube, listening on Apple or Spotify, please subscribe to the podcast.
I'd appreciate it.
This is the Dinesh D'Souza Podcast.
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.
I'm going to try to cover a bunch of things in the news in this opening segment, things that I think you'll find quite interesting.
60 Minutes did a weekend episode about the federal government cutting funding from Harvard University.
And they have a Harvard researcher, Joan Bruges, and she says her work has the potential to prevent breast cancer.
But she was notified last spring that her federal funding was terminated.
This is classic Harvard.
It's also classic CBS because it's like, let's find a case of something that is of great benefit to the American people, curing cancer.
What could be more important?
And so the point is, and they cut my funding.
So we've seen this tactic before.
PBS used it.
NPR tried it.
USAID tried it.
It's sort of like when you're funding a bunch of things, and a lot of them are just absolute horror shows, but you're like, let's bring out the one thing that we can think of that everyone can agree on.
It could be like Mr. Rogers.
It could be the documentary on the Civil War.
It's the one that makes everybody go, well, yeah, why are we cutting our funding for that?
So, this is what CBS is going for.
And of course, this researcher, Joan Bruce, is, of course, playing along with it.
I was on the verge of curing cancer.
Now, a couple of things come to mind right away.
Number one, if you're on the verge of curing cancer, Harvard, by the way, has a $51 billion endowment.
If they thought your work is that important, that indispensable, and a cure for cancer is imminent, they could surely fund you.
So, the fact that they're not funding you, what does that tell you?
That tells you that they think your claim is bogus.
You're not really on the verge of curing cancer.
You just basically want to continue feeding at the federal trough.
Of course, look, every researcher wants to continue to get subsidized, wants to keep the funds flowing.
And so that's understandable.
But what I'm getting at is that there's a lack of credibility here because if Harvard realized this woman is curing cancer, I think they would be all in funding you.
But let's say they're not.
Let's say that Harvard is taking the position that even though you are about to cure cancer, we're not going to fund you.
What is Harvard basically saying?
Or what is Harvard even saying in the context of this whole showdown with the federal government, with the Trump administration?
Here's what Harvard is saying: Harvard is saying we prefer to continue discriminating on the basis of race.
We continue to insist upon our DEI initiatives.
We want to allow the torrent of anti-Semitism that has become all the rage on our campus to continue.
That's really important to us.
In fact, it's so important to us that we would jeopardize the federal funding of the entire university and specifically of this woman who's on the verge of curing cancer.
But who cares?
Because DEI is more important than that.
And racial preferences are more important than that.
This would appear to be Harvard's position because, after all, this is what the fight is about.
The Trump administration is basically saying you need to stop the DEI.
You need to stop the racial preferences.
You need to have free speech, yes.
But on the other hand, you need to curtail an environment that makes Jewish students feel unsafe on the campus.
Isn't that what a campus is, by and large, a place where you can actually study, you can learn without your, we're not talking here about microaggressions, political correctness.
We're not talking about suppressing issues and discussion in the classroom.
We're basically talking about threats that are made to Harvard students, Jewish students, by and large, making it difficult for them to have a normal campus life as a student.
Now, the government is likely to open up in the next few days.
I'm not sure if it'll be this week or the beginning of next week.
What's happened is that there are enough defectors in the Senate, Democratic defectors, that there are now enough votes to move this forward.
And so you need the House to vote yes, the Senate to vote yes, and then Trump to sign it.
It's interesting that even though a handful of Democrats, including, by the way, some people who I think are pretty liberal, people like the senator from New Mexico, Mark Kelly in Arizona, these are people who I think heard enough from their constituents who wanted their benefits and paychecks to continue.
And so they felt the pressure, and so they succumbed.
They yielded.
They went along.
But interestingly, about 40 Democrats had no intention of going along.
They wanted to keep the government shut down.
Why?
Because their calculation is the more suffering imposed on the American people, the more that anger would be directed at the Republicans.
The Democrats' talking point was: hey, listen, the Republicans control all three branches of government, and therefore it's their fault.
Even though, in a sense, on this issue, the Republicans control two branches of government, not three.
Why?
Because in the Senate, to get this done, you need 60 votes.
So it is theoretically true, but as a practical matter, false, that the Republicans control all three branches of government on this particular matter.
Now, I want to talk about these 50-year mortgages that apparently the Trump administration is proposing and talking about rolling out shortly.
I know why they're doing it.
They're doing it for good reason.
They know that housing prices are out of reach for a lot of Americans, a lot of working-class people, a lot of young people.
And this is in fact a change from the way it was a generation ago, certainly when I was a young man and out buying a house for the first time.
By the way, I don't want to say it was easy for me to do it because it wasn't.
I rented, then I bought a very small place.
Prices went up a little bit.
I was able to sell it.
I was then able to buy a two-bedroom condo.
Again, prices went up a little bit.
I was able to sell it and then buy a house.
But all of this occurred over a decade.
And so it was a struggle, but it was doable.
I think the point is that homes that cost $200,000, $220,000 are now $600,000, $650,000.
And what kind of income do you need?
What kind of down payment do you need to be able to afford these homes?
Again, it's not a simple matter of just looking at the numbers, because let's remember that in our day, interest rates were a lot higher.
We were buying homes at 7%, 8, 9% mortgage rates.
So we had high payments.
Rates are much lower today.
So in some respects, things are better.
And but nevertheless, it is the case that in our current economy, this is a prospect, homeownership.
And by homeownership, again, we're talking about homeownership by and large in the desirable parts of the country.
There are large parts of the country where you can buy land very cheaply, where you can construct homes reasonably cheaply.
But we're talking about homes in suburbs.
We're talking about homes in cities where people want to live and work.
I know Ben Shapiro got into some trouble for talking about: hey, if you can't afford living in New York, maybe you shouldn't live in New York.
I think Ben was trying to make a statement of the obvious, but people were like, how can you say that?
Well, the truth of it is prices in New York are absurd.
They are, and by the way, rent control in New York has exacerbated that problem.
So it is simply a fact that many people who work in Manhattan don't live in Manhattan.
They live in the surrounding boroughs.
And there are even wealthy people who make long commutes from New Jersey, from Connecticut, one hour on the train to get to New York.
So the truth of it is when you want to live in a place like New York or Miami or downtown Dallas, you're going to find prices are pretty exorbitant.
Anyway, the Trump administration says, all right, if people can't afford to pay these prices in a 30-year mortgage, maybe we should offer a 50-year mortgage.
Now, the rebuttal to that is: wait a minute, are you telling people that they need to be like debt slaves for life, that they need to buy a house at the age of, let's say, 20, and they won't have that house paid off till they're 70?
What?
What kind of quote solution is this to our problems?
But of course, the Trump administration is not thinking that you're going to buy a house at 20 and keep it till you're 70.
What they're thinking about is you buy a house at 20, you can now afford the house, you don't have to live as a sort of renter, you are building equity in the house.
Now, maybe when you're 30, that house will go up in value and you can sell it, keep a profit, roll that profit into the down payment of another house, and maybe that's another 50-year mortgage, or maybe now you switch to a 30-year mortgage.
The point being that the 50-year mortgage is not something that is being inflicted on you, it's an option available to you.
True, if you just stay for 50 years and you just pay off that mortgage, you'll end up paying a lot more for that house over 50 years than you would have if you had, let's say, paid it off in 30 years.
This is just the logic of the mortgage, right?
If you pay off anything, whether it's a house or whether it's a car or whether it's a sofa, the sooner you pay it off, the less interest you end up paying, and therefore the less sort of overall price you end up paying over time.
Obviously, a good solution to this housing shortage is more housing.
And that's something I think that we should be looking at.
I think the other issue, of course, is to curb the inflow of illegals into this country, which is not helping the problem.
And this is something in which I think the Trump administration has been doing some things, rounding up the criminals, chasing them back, deporting them.
But I think not enough.
There needs to be a lot more of this.
I think the deportations can't be limited simply to people who are inveterate or habitual criminals.
By and large, there were just a lot of people who were brought in, imported, and often with a kind of welcome sign by the Biden administration.
Several million of these people.
Why are they still here?
I'm talking again about illegals.
I realize that there's a nasty rhetoric that comes from some people on our side, applying even to me, Danesh, go home, as if I'm not home.
I mean, this has been home for me since I was 17 years old, and certainly since I became a citizen in 1991.
So I don't have another home to go to.
And that's true of a lot of illegals.
And by the way, that's also true.
The same people who are saying this, it's true of them.
It's true of their ancestors who came as newcomers and as immigrants at one time.
When you look at a guy, even like Nick Fuentes, you think this guy came over on the Mayflower?
Not exactly.
All right.
Let me talk about the Olympics.
I want to cover that topic as well because in a piece of good news, it looks like the Olympics, the International Olympics, is going to ban all trans-identified males from women's events.
Notice that they don't have to ban trans-identified females, right?
Because that doesn't happen.
That's not even a problem.
The problem is always in a one-way direction.
You have biological males who identify as female who want to play in the women's division.
Why?
Because they are bigger and stronger than women and have a much better chance to win.
So it's almost like the Olympics here, after, by the way, having a big scientific exploration and study, has discovered something through scientific evidence that has been known for all of human history until like two years ago.
So from the dawn of mankind till like 2023, the whole world understood that men are bigger and on average taller and in general stronger than women.
But now this has to be sort of corroborated or rediscovered through science.
The International Olympic Committee had a review which was conducted under the aegis of its president, Kirsty Coventry, and its medical and scientific director, Dr. Jane Thornton.
She, by the way, is herself a Canadian Olympic, former Olympic rower.
And this scientific committee did a detailed review of the studies, apparently presented them in a kind of calm and rational way.
And the International Olympic Committee was like, this is it.
This makes sense.
And so they have made up their mind.
Now, it's going to take some time before they announce a new policy.
It's most likely to come early next year because the Winter Olympics are coming up.
They're coming up in Milan in February.
And so we're likely to see a clarified new eligibility rule.
Until now, by the way, the International Olympic Committee has given sort of recommendations, it's given guidance to sports groups, but it's basically said each sport can make up its own mind how it wants to deal with these issues.
So the change is that they're now saying, no, we're going to have an across-the-board ban, and that's it.
And this ban is expected to come into force before the 2028 Los Angeles Olympics.
And this will, in fact, avoid a clash with the Trump administration because the Trump administration has already, well, Trump signed an executive order basically saying no transgender women, i.e., no biological males, in the female categories.
And Trump has even implied that the U.S. is not even going to give these transgender competitors a visa.
They're not going to be able to enter the country.
So they can't obviously participate in the Olympics.
Now, of course, some trans activists, we have to move the Olympics.
Well, the good news here is that with the International Olympic Committee changing its eligibility rules, this won't even be an issue.
Those athletes will simply not, well, they're allowed to participate.
They've got to participate in their own category.
In the female category and not, I'm sorry, in the male category, not in the female category.
Now, what about you have some strange cases, and the boxer Iman Khalif of Algeria, remember that guy?
Well, this was a guy that apparently has some medical issue with his genitalia.
He has indistinct or inadequate genitals.
I'm really not sure what the details are.
But the truth of it is he was raised supposedly from birth as a girl.
He is genetically male, and he has male levels of testosterone, male chromosomal levels, but he was raised as a girl.
And the question is: what happens to people like this?
What happens to people of intermediate sort of genital conditions?
Well, again, the Olympic Committee is taking a hard line here and basically saying that if you have male chromosomes and male levels of testosterone, you're out.
You cannot compete in the female category.
And by the way, the World Boxing Federation has taken the same position already.
They've introduced mandatory sex testing.
They have said that Khalif cannot compete in the female category.
And so what you see here is after a period of just lunacy.
I mean, lunacy coming out of scientific journals, lunacy coming out of once-respected magazines that have now lost most of their credibility, places like Scientific American, lunacy coming out of international organizations, which, by the way, were all just cowed, intimidated.
They were just not brave enough to say the obvious.
But what's happened is that thanks to a lucid critique of transgenderism and a lot of the bogus claims around transgenderism, it looks like slowly the ship is being righted.
It looks like slowly institutions are coming around.
Slowly people are getting not only the courage, but the common sense to say that basically male is male and female is female.
And the reason that we have separate categories for the males and the females at Wimbledon and on the track and in the boxing ring is because there are real differences, ineradicable differences between men and women.
When I first came to America around 1980, I had $500 in my pocket.
Now, if I'd been really frugal and not spent a penny of that money, what would it be worth now?
What could it actually buy today compared to what it could buy in 1980?
Answer, less than $130.
Now, why is that?
Because the U.S. government, through the Fed, is constantly printing money.
When the government prints money, there's more money, chasing the same amount of goods and services.
So money goes down in value.
Money buys less.
The Fed has been at this since 1913.
And that's why a dollar today can only buy what a few cents could buy in 1913.
And the government continues to print oceans of money.
It really never stops.
An ounce of gold reached a high of $850 in 1980.
Today, it's worth around $4,000 an ounce.
So historically, over time, gold has gone up in value and dollars have gone down.
What about in the last 12 months?
Gold is up around 40%.
I believe now is the time to find out how you can diversify your savings with gold and silver.
This is why I've partnered with Gold Co.
They offer the best customer service for precious metals ownership.
They are also the only gold dealer that offers a first-time gold buyer rebate of up to 10%, 10% in bonus gold or bonus silver on qualified purchases.
There's no better offer out there.
So to learn more about how to safeguard your savings from the dollar's decline, go to dineshgold.com.
Easy to remember, DineshGold.com.
Thanksgiving holds so many memories.
I'm sure it's the same for you.
Right now, there's a girl finding out she's pregnant, and in the next couple of weeks, she's going to have to make a decision.
Whatever decision she makes will become her memory of this Thanksgiving season for the rest of her life.
What will she be thankful for a year from now?
Well, you.
She'll be thankful that you introduced her to her baby by providing a free ultrasound and she'll be thankful that she chose life as she prepares for her baby's first Thanksgiving.
You can take a stand for life.
How?
By providing an ultrasound with pre-born.
When a young woman sees her baby on the ultrasound and hears her baby's heartbeat, she is twice as likely to choose life.
Just $140 provides five ultrasounds that can save five babies.
$280 saves 10 babies.
A gift of $15,000 provides an ultrasound machine that can save thousands of babies for years to come.
Call 833-850-2229.
Tell them Dinesh sent you, or you can go to preborn.com/slash Dinesh.
That's preborn.com/slash Dinesh.
Guys, our next guest is not only a good friend, but one of the people I respect most in the conservative movement.
This is Alan Estrin, who is a co-founder of Prager U, Prager University.
He is, in fact, a silent or perhaps not so silent force behind the indispensable man, the one and only Dennis Prager.
Alan is the executive producer of the Dennis Prager show.
He's had a long career in film, in television, in academia.
He has written Emmy award-winning TV shows.
He's also written film history.
He's been involved in educational videos, corporate videos, a highly praised documentary, Israel in a Time of Terror.
He's a novelist.
He's quite a Renaissance man.
He teaches screenwriting at the American Film Institute.
We're going to talk about his most recent book, very important, particularly in the current context, The Honest Book of Presidents: The Men Who Shaped America.
Of course, the website for Prager is PragerU.com.
Alan, welcome.
Thanks for coming on.
I really appreciate it.
I thought I might start by asking you about our friend Dennis Prager, a man who has been on his back after a terrible accident.
This is several months ago.
How is Dennis doing?
And what can you tell us about his condition?
I can tell you he's doing better, but I don't want to mislead anybody to think that he's about to get out of his hospital bed and return to the radio as if nothing had happened.
He suffered, Dinesh, as you know, a catastrophic injury.
He is 100% above the neck.
That's the good news.
And he's close to zero below.
So that is what we're dealing with.
And the most remarkable thing about this whole story is Dennis's attitude.
This is a man who has been tested and has passed the test.
Dinesh, he is living his values.
Dennis has told me, he's told other people, his level of happiness, given his current condition, is not much different than his level before the accident because of his attitude.
He looks to find what is good and he focuses on that.
And in the odd, very odd calculus of this kind of thing, he's done remarkably well, given the kind of injury he's had.
For example, the nature of the injury, he shouldn't be able to speak, but he now can speak very well.
His voice is strong.
And as I said, his mind, when you're talking to him, you're talking to the great Dennis Prager.
That has not changed at all.
Wow.
That is really remarkable.
I mean, for most of us, the idea of being disabled in that way, it's hard to believe that you'd even be the same person, but we're telling us that Dennis is the same person and that he has brought his whole powerful religious and moral perspective to bear on his own experience, which is, as you said, the ultimate test of an honest man.
You put it perfectly.
Absolutely perfectly.
This is, as I said, he had a set of values, a set of principles that he brought, as it were, to this tragedy.
And it has sustained him.
His values have sustained him.
And Dinesh, there is, and you'll be hearing them, as your audience will hear them eventually from Dennis.
There's a whole lot of lessons that Dennis is going to bring to the world that I think will help many, many people.
And I'll say this as a kind of general statement to what we can all take away from this.
And I've said this to a lot of people.
Given what's happened to Dennis and given the fact that Dennis has been able to main his happiness level, if something goes wrong today, in your day, and you find yourself in a bad mood, you have no excuse to pull your, but to pull yourself out of it.
If Dennis can be happy in his state, you can be happy in your state, meaning the state of your health, the fact that you can walk around, the fact that tomorrow is truly another day with infinite possibilities.
You can just look to Dennis and say, here is somebody who's managed to maintain a level of happiness and positivity under the worst circumstances.
I have no excuse for not being a little bit happier today.
Yeah, yeah, absolutely.
Alan, as you know, there's a swirling debate, but I would also argue a lot of confusion on the right about who we are, what do we stand for, what does conservatism mean, what does America first mean?
You have a new book that is a survey of the presidents, all the presidents, going all the way back to the very beginning.
Perhaps we could talk about some of the lessons from that book and see if they might be helpful in some way to what we're arguing about right now.
Let me start by asking you: perhaps the best way to start is at the very beginning, the earliest presidents, the names we all recognize.
Is there one that stands out from that early group as a president?
And what is the thing that you would want to highlight about that person?
Well, it's very difficult to discuss the early presidents and not highlight, of course, George Washington.
So every survey that's done on the presidents, and Prague, you, by the way, just put one out.
Washington is number one.
And you were very kind to refer to a Dennis in your introduction as the indispensable man.
That's the way people referred to George Washington in his day as the indispensable man.
And if there was anybody who was clear on first principles, it was George Washington.
And he lived out those principles almost to perfection.
And the highest principle was that the United States was going to be a country ruled by its citizens.
The citizen was going to be the key.
The key person, the individuals was going to be key.
And the concept of a monarchy or anything like that was going to be dispensed with.
And Washington, who could have just simply said, look, I'm the guy in charge and I'm going to stay in charge and then I'll tell you who's going to come next.
People probably would have gone along with it.
He was that revered.
But he said, no, this is what we fought for.
And I'm going to be the last person not to stick to those principles.
And there are many examples in his life in which that was the case.
I think it shows you, Alan, that when you're dealing with the president, you're not just dealing with ideas in the abstract.
You're dealing with the personification of principles and ideas in a man of not only of words, but also of actions.
And I say this because to me, it's striking that if you follow the debates around the Constitution, Washington is almost silent.
He almost says nothing.
And so you'd get the idea these other guys are just far more brilliant.
They're far more important.
Washington is kind of like the figurehead who's just sitting there.
But no, for the founding generation, all those guys agreed that he was the guy.
He was the main man.
It was not even a difficult choice as to who should be the first president.
And there were some of the founders themselves who would not have objected, as you say, if Washington had essentially crowned himself monarch.
Your point about Washington being almost silent in the debates is just, again, a tribute to Washington.
He knew these ideas had to be worked out.
He didn't want to insert himself in such a way to tip the debate one way or another unless, and he did on occasion direct the conversation in a particular way when he felt it was absolutely necessary.
And there have been other presidents who have kind of followed his example.
I mean, you can think of people like, I'm going to jump right ahead to someone like Calvin Coolidge, who is another president who lived by the motto in his nickname, people would call him Silent Cow.
But he was a person who thought that he who governs least governs best.
He trusted, like Washington did, in the American people.
Dwight Eisenhower, another president who people would often criticize because, oh, they would say he was out golfing.
He wasn't intervening when he should intervene.
His own advisors told him during the whole McCarthy era, you've got to say something about this guy.
You've got to put him in his place.
And Eisenhower said, no, I'm not.
And Eisenhower despised McCarthy because McCarthy criticized in a very vicious way General Marshall, who obviously was a major figure in World War II, a mentor to Eisenhower.
Even then, Eisenhower said nothing about McCarthy because he said, no, let him, he's going to expose himself.
If I step in, I'm going to tip this debate one way or another.
Eisenhower stepped back.
And in fact, that's what McCarthy did.
McCarthy exposed his weaknesses and his argument.
And ultimately, even before the end of the Eisenhower administration, essentially drank himself to death.
So the principle of letting the American people work these things out, it's when we don't let the American people work things out.
And there are many examples of that among our presidents that we run into trouble.
Who would you say are a couple of the outstanding figures that we don't know from the 19th century?
I say this because, of course, we know Lincoln and the towering influence of Lincoln.
But it strikes me that there are a couple of other characters in there.
I mean, off the top of my head, I think of a guy like Polk, who in a very short single term virtually doubled the size of the United States.
In other words, the acquisition of Texas and parts of Arizona, the Gadson Purchase, the acquisition of parts of the Northwest.
Suddenly, the United States became a country sort of from one ocean to the other.
Do you see a guy like Polk as a figure who maybe doesn't quite get the attention he deserves?
I'm not even necessarily saying it's for good or bad.
I'm just saying that his impact, just objectively viewed, seems to be quite large.
Would you comment either on Polk or just about a couple of figures that stand out to you in the landscape of the 19th century?
Well, let's talk about Polk, and then maybe I'll go to a couple of others.
But I absolutely agree with you.
Wilfred McClay writes the essay in the book.
The book is a series of essays from a wide variety of historians and experts about Polk.
And there's an interesting question, just based on what you said.
Why isn't there a big museum memorial to Polk in Washington?
The guy literally doubled the size of the country and did create the United States from sea to Shining Sea.
And he was very focused, very responsible, knew exactly what he wanted to do and did, and a very impressive president who does not get the attention he deserves.
So let me go to another figure in the 19th century who doesn't get the credit he deserves.
And that would be James Monroe.
He's earlier than Polk.
He's considered the last founding father.
He's the fifth president of the United States.
And he was president in the early part of the 19th century.
Polk is a remarkable character.
His life, he lives one of the most remarkable lives in American history.
He was a hero in the Revolutionary War.
He played a key role in the Battle of Trenton.
He was a hero in the War of 1812.
He was in France and earlier than the War of 1812, when he was a emissary for Jefferson.
It was Monroe that Napoleon's foreign minister presented the idea of the Louisiana Purchase.
Monroe was there.
He had no authority.
He went there to try to acquire New Orleans.
The French said, well, why don't you take the whole thing?
Take the whole Louisiana Purchase.
He had no authority.
And Monroe said, we'll take it.
And we'll deal with the money later.
So that's all James Monroe.
He becomes president after Madison.
As I mentioned, Madison was a brilliant, brilliant guy, not the most successful president, and certainly was not a wartime president.
When he ran into trouble in the War of 1812, he turned to Monroe.
Monroe was the Secretary of War.
And when Monroe comes into office, he's a two-term president.
And you have, he's responsible.
The thing he's probably best known for for his presidency is the Monroe Doctrine.
But during his presidency, you also have the Missouri compromise.
So there's many major achievements.
Monroe may have been the first president who really saw the United States as a world power.
That was really what was behind the Monroe Doctrine.
The Monroe Doctrine said to Europe, stay out of this hemisphere.
It's not your concern anymore, and we're going to take it very badly if you interfere in our hemisphere.
So Monroe, impressive.
Ulysses Grant, much going much later.
Ulysses Grant is often kind of tarred by the fact that he had some scandals at the end of his administration.
But Grant was another one of these guys who was just had this faith in the American people, trusted in the people, kind of stayed out of the way, let the country grow.
Of course, he was the one who completed the Transcontinental Railroad.
He was the president when that happened.
There were real serious issues in the South.
And every position basically Grant took on that issue on the issue of Reconstruction was positive.
The Ku Klux Klan, Ku Klux Klan had started in the South.
During Grant's administration, Grant put it down.
He ended the Ku Klux Klan.
Now, came back again, as ironically, during the Wilson administration.
This was now in the 20th century, came back very strong.
But Grant would have none of it.
And this is another theme that pops up in this book.
It's usually your friends, not your enemies, that get presidents in trouble.
I mean, if I skip ahead just on that thought, Warren Harding, a president in the 20th century who is very underrated.
He didn't finish his term.
He died in the middle of his term, but did very good things coming out of World War I to get the country back in a position so the roaring 20s could happen.
But he was his end of his administration before he died was marred by scandal.
And his famous line is: it's not my enemies that keep me up at night, it's my damn friends.
Wow.
And that happens.
That happens more than a few times.
So the point I'd like to make, and maybe people are kind of getting this from about the book, Dinesh, that I think is very valuable.
It is biographies of every single president through Trump, Washington through Trump.
I should mean including Trump.
It is also a biography of the United States of America.
Meaning, and the reason I can say that is because every major issue, whatever it was in its day, ran through 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
So whether it's the most revered or the most reviled, whether it's James Madison or Benjamin Harrison or Chester Allen Arthur or Dwight Eisenhower or Truman, whatever the major issue is, we're dealing with it.
The president is dealing with it.
So you're getting, this book is a biography of the United States.
What I'm getting, Alan, from the things that you're saying is it's so striking how even in the founding generation, you begin to see that principles can endure, but the situation is in flux.
And by that, I mean at the very beginning, the founders are like, we are a very small, fragile power.
We don't really want to declare ourselves from sea to siding from sea to shining sea.
We don't actually have all that.
And nor are we going to meddle in anyone else's affairs because we're way too small and we're going to get crushed.
But by the time you get Monroe, the United States is a little stronger.
It's almost like saying that the infant has now become an adolescent and he can look around and say, well, at the very least, stay out of my neighborhood.
So this is not Monroe betraying the principles of the founders.
It's Monroe recognizing the United States is in a different place.
And I think that's really important for us today as conservatives to recognize that we have enduring principles, but the application of them varies from time to time, from era to era.
And figuring out how to do that kind of application is the task of statesmanship.
It's the task of the president, but I think also it's a task of every citizen to try to think through how that can be done effectively.
Guys, I've been talking to Alan Estrin, founder, co-founder of PragerU.
The website is PragerU.com.
And the book, The Honest Book of Presidents, The Men Who Shaped America, it's available now for order and purchase wherever books are sold.
Alan, as always, thank you so much for joining me.
Dinesh, thank you.
There's a powerful new film coming from Angel Studios on the Wonder Project called Young Washington.
It tells the untold story of how George Washington's character was forged long before independence when he was just 20, facing failure, loss, and near death.
Directed by John Irwin, who made Jesus Revolution, American Underdog, and starring Andy Serkis, Ben Kingsley, and Kelsey Grammer.
It's a sweeping, high-quality production that reminds us what true leadership, virtue, and providence look like.
This isn't revisionist history.
It's the real story told with courage, truth, and respect for the values that shaped America.
Young Washington releases Independence Day 2026 on the 250th anniversary of our nation's founding.
Become an early supporter by joining the Angel Guild today.
Premium members get two free opening day tickets and help bring this inspiring story to theaters across America.
Go to angel.com/slash Dinesh.
Help make Young Washington the number one movie this Independence Day.
Again, it's angel.com/slash Dinesh.
My Pillow is right in the middle of their big three-in-one sale with a limited edition product, a back-in-stock special, and a close-out deal you won't find anywhere else.
My Pillow bed sheets, only $29.88.
Any color, any style, any size, even Kings.
Regular price, $119.88, now only $29.88.
But move fast because once they're gone, they're gone for good.
My Towels, finally back in stock, but not for long.
Get a six-piece My Towel set.
Regular price, $69.98, now only $39.98.
And for the first and only time, get their limited edition premium MyPillows made with Giza Cotton and a designer gusset.
Queen size $17.98 Kings only $19.98.
Also for a limited time, when you order over $100, you get free shipping plus $100 and free digital gifts.
Call 800-876-0227.
That's 800-876-0227 or go to mypillow.com.
Use promo code Dinesh for the best offers ever.
Quantities are low.
So order now.
Again, it's mypillow.com and the promo code is D-I-N-E-S-H Dinesh.
I'm continuing the discussion of my book, Life After Death, The Evidence.
We are in a chapter talking about near-death experiences.
And the last time I gave an example of an 11-year-old who, despite having no heartbeat, cardiac arrest, and was supposedly deprived of all his functions of perception, nevertheless is able to describe what's going on in the hospital.
Now, let me give you an even more stunning example from Seattle.
A Seattle woman reports a near-death experience following a heart attack.
She tells a social worker, Kimberly Clark, that she had separated from her body and had not only risen to the ceiling, but floated outside the hospital altogether.
Clark didn't say anything, but didn't really believe her.
But a small detail that the woman mentioned caught her attention.
The woman said that she had been really distracted by the presence of a shoe on the third floor ledge at the north end of the emergency room building.
She said, I'm trying to look inside, but I keep getting distracted because on the ledge of the emergency room building, there's a shoe.
It was a tennis shoe, she said, with a worn patch and a lace stuck under the heel.
The woman asked Clark, go find the shoe.
Clark said, This is ridiculous.
She said the woman had been brought into the emergency room at night.
She could not possibly see what was going on outside the building, let alone on a third floor ledge.
Somewhat reluctantly, she said, I'm going to go check.
And it's only after trying several different rooms, looking out several windows, that finally climbing out onto the ledge, she was able to find and retrieve the shoe.
Now, some of the most sensational claims in near-death research involve blind people reporting out-of-body experiences.
And in the out-of-body experiences, they can see.
The researcher and author Elizabeth Kubler-Ross, in her book On Death and Dying, talks about patients who had been blind for 10 years recounting near-death experiences in which they gave detailed descriptions of their medical procedures.
They could even identify the jewelry and clothing of the people who were around them.
And this has also been corroborated by other studies.
In 1982, the Gallup organization published a study called Adventures and Immortality, reporting on a number of these experiences.
And that too included some reports from people who were blind.
Now, near-death experiences have been controversial from the very beginning, and they remain controversial to this day.
They have been criticized, impugned, attacked, questioned from various quarters.
Interestingly, the liberal theologian Hans Kung and the evangelical magazine Christianity Today have both criticized near-death experiences.
But there has also been a criticism of these NDEs, near-death experiences, from the evangelical conservatives.
In a monograph, John Ankerberg and John Weldon said that near-death experiences seemed fishy, seemed bogus, because of all this kind of, well, first of all, they're happening all over the world.
So evidently, they're occurring in various different religious and cultural contexts.
Second of all, this whole notion of everyone going through a tunnel, everyone seeing a light, everyone having a warm and peaceful feeling.
Ankerberg and Weldon say, well, this sounds like some kind of universal religion.
God seems indifferent to evil.
Everybody lives happily ever after.
So it doesn't really jibe with Christian theology and certainly not with evangelical theology.
But while it's true that the common thread of a lot of these near-death experiences is in fact this sentiment of universal love and forgiveness, there are also a number of records of pretty dark and gruesome near-death experiences.
And those were not reported in the original literature, but as the studies became more thorough, more widespread, more systematic, there was an acknowledgement that these experiences are not all positive.
However, consistently, the people who go through these experiences tend to become more religious.
They tend to become more committed to what you could call traditional religious practice.
And now we get to what may be called the atheist critique, which is, of course, not that the near-death experiences are out of line with some pre-existing theological commitments, but rather these aren't real.
This is somehow bogus.
And let's go through this atheist critique and a couple of its key points.
Point number one, which is partly valid, these people are not fully dead.
So I suppose, strictly speaking, this is true.
You don't have some guy who like died five years ago or climb out of his coffin and tell you this is what it's like.
If you define death as the permanent and irreversible breakdown of human functions, then there can't really be a near-death experience.
But look, even if these people are not, strictly speaking, dead, they are as close to dead as we can get.
Because we are talking here not simply of cases of people who have lost heart function.
By and large, death today is understood a little more in terms of a cessation of brain function than it is of just heart functions.
But you have near-death experiences in both cases.
In the British medical journal called The Lancet, a physician, PM Van Lomel, reports near-death experiences that took place even after the patient's brain activity had completely ceased.
This, scientifically speaking, should not really be possible, and yet we know it's possible because it has in fact occurred.
Now, one theory that Carl Sagan and some others had put out years ago that has now been discredited is that the near-death experience is somehow a kind of recapitulation of what is happening to you in the womb.
In other words, you're on the verge of dying, you're at the end of life, and your mind flashes back to the beginning of life before you have full awareness when you're inside the womb.
And at first glance, this is a very clever theory because it seems to account for some of the features of the near-death experience.
One feature, of course, is the tunnel.
Well, hey, that's what happens when you are first born.
The sense of floating.
The fetus is floating in the womb.
The movement from darkness to light.
Aha, I'm now out of the womb.
I can experience light.
So all of this gave some plausibility to this idea that maybe this is a kind of flashback to the very beginning of life.
However, researchers began to look more closely and they pointed out: well, the first thing that was pointed out by philosopher Carl Becker, relying on medical evidence, he goes: number one, newborns can't see.
So when newborns come out of the womb, they can't see anything.
So this idea that we're remembering what we first saw, we first saw nothing.
And so right there, you have a serious problem for the Carl Sagan theory.
Even if newborns could see, they don't have the mental faculties that could recollect what you saw in the birth process.
I mean, try to think about this way.
Can you remember what life was like when you were six months old?
No.
How about a year old?
No.
How about a year and a half?
Generally, no.
My earliest memories are probably around five.
Debbie says she can remember things that happened when she was three, but very few people can remember things that happened before that.
You don't even have that knowledge.
So the idea that you can somehow remember it later, when you're dying, you suddenly remember things that you couldn't remember your entire life.
This actually doesn't seem to make a whole bunch of sense.
Not to mention that when you look more closely at the birth process, it doesn't really resemble the near-death experience at all.
And it's not a case of moving, for example, in a kind of smooth way from darkness to light.
The actual birth process, you're in a tightly compressed passage.
The newborn emerges typically headfirst, sometimes chafed or bruised from the process.
So, and not to mention the fact that one of the points that was made by philosopher Carl Becker is he says, I can tell you about near-death experiences from people who didn't even go through the normal birth process.
They were born by cesarean birth.
So, clearly, this tunnel, this light, this kind of replication of what life was like coming out of the womb, they didn't come out of the womb that way.
So, I think that taken together, this is a full and adequate refutation of the Carl Sagan thesis.
And so, when we pick this up again tomorrow, we're going to consider further atheist objections to the near-death experience, notably the idea that this is sort of a culturally conditioned experience.
We're going to look at that.
And also, the argument that, by and large, this is a distorted brain state that can be replicated by giving people hallucinogenic drugs.
So, the idea here is if you give people hallucinogenic drugs, they see wild things also, and they may even see wild things in common.
Different people under drugs may have similar experiences.
That doesn't prove, of course, that those experiences are somehow real.
They might even, they might just be illusions or hallucinations occurring within the brain.
Subscribe to the Dinesh D'Souza podcast on Apple, Google, and Spotify.
▲
Export Selection