The Ricochet Podcast - Arguing In Good Faith

Episode Date: September 11, 2014

This week’s show is the very model of civil conversation and discourse as our hosts debate the President’s speech, and a whole host of his policies and positions. Who defends him and who throws him under the bus? This discussion may surprise you. Later, Hoover fellow Bruce Thorton joins to discuss the ever-evolving story in the Middle East and the continuing echoes of 9/11. Then, yep... Source

These days, life is all... Luckily, with Bank of Ireland's Current Account and Visa Debit Card, you get all your day-to-day banking covered for just €6 a month. So you can tap, pay and send in euro with no surprises. Easy! Search Bank of Ireland Current Account to find out more. Terms and conditions apply. Send via 365 online and phone. Government stamp duty applies to debit cards and checks. Bank of Ireland is regulated by the Central Bank of Ireland.

Activate program. More than our share of the nattering nabobs of negativism. Well, I'm not a crook. I'll never tell a lie. But I am not a bully. I'm the king of the world! I'm the king of the world! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.

It's the Ricochet Podcast with Peter Robinson and Rob Long. I'm James Lilacs, and our guests on this 9-11 edition are Bruce Thornton, author of Democracy's Dangers and Discontents, and David Limbaugh stops in. He's in the middle of a worldwide book tour blitz to promote Jesus on Trial. Let's have ourselves a podcast. There you go again. Welcome, everybody, to the Ricochet Podcast, brought to you this week by Harry's Shave. For the finest shave at the best price,

go to harrys.com and use the coupon code RICOCHET. And we're brought to you by Encounter Books. For 15% off any title, you can go to encounterbooks.com and use the coupon code RICOCHET at your checkout. This week's featured title is Making David into Goliath, How the World israel by joshua baravchik and obviously we're brought to you by ricochet itself this is the point every week where rob says hoorah i don't have to make the entire pitch anymore i've got folks to do it for me exactly tell us what's going on i'm like you know tom sawyer Sawyer in the whitewashing events.

If you are listening to this podcast and you are a member of Ricochet, we thank you and we are pleased and honored to have you be a member. If you are not a member of Ricochet and you're enjoying this podcast, we'd like you to join. And here is why. Hello, my username is Jay Fly and I'm calling from California, north of Sacramento. Mitt Romney was a practical man, but for some reason he lost the election in 2012. I was feeling down, so I searched the Internet, and there I found WiccaShchet.com. Join the conversation. It's a civil life discussion. Okay.

Now, unfortunately, Google Voice cut off that brilliant song, but we thank Jay Fly in California for his words, and we suggest that you heed them. We also have another voice who wants to be heard. Fighting Philly. This is Fighting in Philly with a reason why you should join Ricochet. Why should you join Ricochet? Actually, it comes down to two reasons.

One, you're brilliant. Of course you're brilliant. You enjoy these podcasts. But because you're not a member, you can't comment, which means no one knows how brilliant you are. See, when you join, you'll write a post about a subject you feel passionately about, and then everyone comments and tells you how brilliant you are. They agree with all your logic and all your conclusions. This is what happened to me, and it feels awesome.

Actually, the ricochetti have forced me to examine almost all of my arguments to refine my thinking and to realize where I was exposed rhetorically. And as a result, since I joined Ricochet, my thinking has gotten smarter and more nuanced. And now I'm brilliant, and you can be too. So that's the first reason you should join. The second reason you should join is you're not as broke as you claim you are. Rob and Peter can't say this because they're kind and decent people, but I can because I'm from Philly, and despite the fact that this is a kind and decent place, everyone's already made up their mind, so here goes.

Forty bucks for a year. You cheapskate. This year you're going to spend more than 4040 in gas just turning around when you miss exits. Wait, it's not $40. It's $39.95. You'll lose more than $39.95 a year in your couch cushions. It's a dime a day. If you can't afford a dime a day, then you certainly can't afford to be hanging around listening to witty political podcasts. Get back to work and stop skewing the numbers.

In all seriousness, if you want to have an impact on the political culture, you need to be involved. And 75 cents a week is something that every free market-oriented, red-blood American should be able to come to terms with. Peace. Excellent. You can't beat that. Taking a railroad spike to your ideological bubble, getting you out of the world and getting your post critiqued by other people

who are happy to join you and happy to have you at Ricochet. So everybody, be like those guys and gals and join. $39.95 a year. Is that all you guys are charging? That's incredible. Well, of course, there are three tiers of membership, James. I'm glad you asked. We do have the practical entry Calvin Coolidge level named after our sainted president, one

of my favorite presidents, Calvin Coolidge We also have the Mrs. Thatcher level Which is slightly more elevated Which gives you a little more goodies And of course the highest level There will never ever be a higher level This could only be the highest possible level The Ronald Reagan level

And of course we are happy to have you At any level you would like to join I did do a little thing Last week I was on Red Eye And I did a little thing uh last week i was on red eye and i did a little contest for the first um person who got to me who joined at the mrs thatcher level and who got to me in the private message and um and gave me a little it told me to say something and so i said i wove in the names of his daughter's gerbils into my kidding no are kidding me.

No, I'm kidding. There really is nothing to which you will not stoop. There's no level. There is no level. Fantastic. Well, folks, of course, that voice you hear there is Peter Robinson. And Peter, we're going to ask you about your book that you've been working on. But before we do, we should mention that this is actually a very... This is a rare week when you think about it.

Rob Long has a new book out, a compilation of his, a synthesis, a crushing together of his previous two books. I have a new book out, Casablanca Tango, Murder Mystery Set in 1947, Minneapolis. It's available at Amazon. And Rob and I will both be in a book that is coming out later this year,

The Seven Deadly Virtues, which is brought to you by Jonathan V. Last and American Enterprise Institute. So a panoply of books to which Peter will soon add his Cold War history, I'm sure. But the one book that keeps following me around is the first novel I wrote and The Gallery of Regrettable Food, a compilation about American food that came out on 9-11. I remember thinking publication day is a useless, meaningless thing for books, but still you think, I don't know, it's kind of like your birthday. If my book's coming out, maybe I'll get a call from Time or USA Today

or any of those other archaic things that existed around then. And then, of course, I came downstairs and turned on the television and that was the end of that. So here we are 13 years later. There was a lull there for a while, it seemed. There was a trough where the emotions faded. But now we find out that they're actually quite fresh and can be brought back with a mere threat and contemplation of what ISIS can do. Here we are. Have we learned anything?

Are we better off, Peter? What do you think? Are we better off today than we were on the first 9-11? Mm-hmm. Thanks, Rob. Yeah, yeah. No. I think we have to say unequivocally yes.

Let Peter go. It's just I love the agony, the agonizing that you came to that. A lot of people think that the neocons are on the right – pound the table and – you don't think we are. I believe the answer is no. I believe the answer is no partly because – largely because of what's happened in this country since 9-11. And in this country since 9-11, for the first time, and the terrorism threat, I know we're talking about the president's speech last night, but I'm struck again and again and again that what I now think that a quarter of a century from now, when we look back on the administration of Barack Obama, we will say that was the moment when the government of the United States officially became hostile to traditional values and religious beliefs in this country.

There has been introduced into this country confusion about what we stand for, confusion about the proper place of the family, the proper place of the government in religion. I believe that this country is a more confused country than it was on the original 9-11 and that the president can huff and puff. And indeed, our military leaders can do the hard work of figuring out how to strike ISIS. And we will send brave men and women to go carry out missions of that kind. But the country seems to me a more exposed, a more dangerous because more confused place than it was on the original 9-11. How is that for taking the conversation and throwing a curve with the very first answer? Rob, you can be asked. Yeah, Peter. I think Peter is wrong.

I think he's wrong in a couple of ways. I think he's wrong because he's conflating what happens culturally and what happens politically. Culturally and politically are not the same thing. This president is guilty of many, many things, but he's not guilty of our cultural changes. Oh, yes. Go ahead. Oh, no. Certainly he's not.

How is he guilty of that? He's not a leader of any – culturally in any sense? He's not a leader culturally in any sense. He hasn't pushed the needle in any way. He's pushed the needle on gay marriage. Oh, he has not pushed that needle. No, no, no. Peter, that's ridiculous. That is a state-by-state election.

He's got nothing to do with it. By the way, if it were a state-by-state election, nothing would have changed. And state-by-state elections, the people who demonstrated and voted against gay marriage in every instance but once he didn't he didn't push the needle he ran after it those are those are not those are not judges appointed by obama anyway look you cannot look at gay marriage and the acceptance of gay marriage around the country and say that is put that at obama's feet that's just ludicrous that's really indefensible to no it's to zero extent oh no no no that's not true that is a president no no it's a direct line When the president of the United States

changes his position, there's a solidification and a crystallization of what's taking place in the culture. Wait, stop. Stop. Time out. If 13 years after the attack on the World Trade

Center, the argument then, within a matter of minutes, becomes about gay marriage. Then yes. Then yes, we are better off than we were 13 years ago. Here's why we're better off. Because we're not talking about smoking cities and rubbles, shopping centers deserted because of anthrax attacks, internet – telecommunications systems coming back to where they were before the EMP of 2007. Yes.

Yes, we are better off. Here's why we're better off. Because in this one instance, a very specific instance of how we're facing, whether we can consider an existential threat or not, but a dangerous enemy abroad. The American people are fairly unified, unified against their president, this magical president that Peter thinks puts a spell on Americans. They are against him and they are demanding action. The American people are now much, much closer to the people on Flight 93, right? When we woke up on 9-11, we were like the people on the first two planes. We had no idea, no idea how bad this was going to get.

Those people were flown into that building and had no – and into the Pentagon and they had no idea what was going to happen. The people on Flight 93 knew and they took action. We are better off now because we know. Now, everyone is saying in the progressive press that we're sort of overreacting and like, God, we're overreacting to two videos and then we're marching to war for two videos. Well, that's what happens when a country knows what it's up against and will not let something big happen again. Between now and the last 9-11, North Korea has developed a nuclear arsenal. It's still as far as we know in single digits, but that's something that didn't exist on the original 9-11. We have done nothing about it, nothing.

China has moved to – in some areas, particularly disputed islands, China has moved from a relatively passive position to one of dominance in the Pacific. And the United States Navy, which for some six decades has guaranteed the peace in the Pacific, is now on the defensive. In Iran, they are closer to a legitimized, by the West, by the president, who Rob thinks only runs after events, but they are closer to a legitimized capture of nuclear technology, which will put them only a half step away from nuclear weapons. And in Europe, our staunchest allies are now in utter confusion,

unable to pull themselves together, to challenge – Hold on. Let me finish. Let me finish for a moment. No, let me finish. Even to challenge an attack on European on in the mind of a president is an interplay between the culture and his own actions. But I believe it is largely a result of Barack Obama and I add to that the cultural and moral confusion here at home and I believe we live in a more confused and therefore more dangerous moment than we did on the original 9-11. OK, boys. now take it apart.

Well, I hear the bomber going overhead, so I'm beginning to wonder. Peter, you make great – I agree with everything you say about foreign policy and everything you say about the world in general. And I do lay that at the feet of the president of the United States and I lay it at the feet of his staff, which includes the next president of the United States, Hillary Clinton. So I absolutely do blame him for that. But I think to conflate those two issues is just – it's not a defensible argument. You could chart the – you could look at periods of cultural loosening and cultural confusion, as you put it, that have happened all through time.

And they've happened even in the vaunted 80s. These things happen. They don't necessarily – it is possible to have cultural confusion, what you call cultural confusion and a strong military and a strong posture abroad. Those two things are not mutually exclusive. And when we conflate them, we sound like people who are unable to be satisfied. In this case, at a minimum, they're taking place at the same time. Well, yes.

OK. That's true. And what you call cultural confusion I think is good. But I think what we both agree is what's happening abroad is bad. But just because they're happening at the same time doesn't mean – I mean I'm drinking coffee now and complaining. But I can easily complain about things when I'm drinking wine. It doesn't – those two things are not connected. He can run after one and he can cause the other. Culturally, I think he's lagging.

I think the litany of misdeeds that Peter cited, I think he's responsible for either by actions or by setting a posture of decline that the rest of the world sees. But you know what? That's the problem with democracy. Those are the dangers. Those are the discontents. And that's the title of Bruce Thornton's new book, Democracy's Dangers and Discontents. Thank you, James. The Tyranny of the Majority from the Greeks to Obama. As for Bruce himself, he's a Shulman Journalist Fellow at the Freedom Center, a research fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institution, and a professor of classics and humanities at California State University. And we welcome him to this, the Ricochet Podcast. Hello, Bruce.

Hey, Peter. How are you doing? Bruce, it's Peter here. You're on with James Lilacs and Rob Long. And let me put to you the question that we've just been discussing. Are we safer today? Better, actually, is the way we put it. Are we better off today than we were on the original 9-11? On the original day of the attacks?

Yes. Well, yeah, we're not having planes flying into our skyscrapers today. But if you mean, are we safer today than we were on September 10th? I don't think so. No, I think that we will. Or this administration is a totally seated global authority to whatever, you know, thug states, nutty terrorist groups, ambitious wannabe hegemons out there. So, OK, Rob, over to you. The background here, Bruce, is that we just had a very lively discussion in which Rob

insisted that we're safer today and I insisted that we weren't. You seem to have more or less agreed with what I was – although for different reasons, my position. So I'm going to toss you to Rob and let him chew on you. Well, so – but here's my response to Peter back then. This is Rob Long in LA. How are you? I'm glad. Thank you for joining us. My response to Peter was back then we didn't know that people were trying to kill us, that the people who the 3000 Americans who died and the people on the planes had no idea what was going on. our president, our feckless president, in my opinion, do something about it now. That seems to me to be smarter, at least smarter, maybe not better off, but smarter and safer than we were when we don't know. Right. If you know that your house can burn down, then you can take precautions.

If you don't know your house can burn down, you're in a lot more danger. well the problem is the only reason it seems right now that being aware we want something done are those two videos of two americans getting beheaded if that hadn't have happened that speech wouldn't have been given last night because that's what changed the polls second point is that well yeah we're aware and something should be done. What should be done? Because what the president laid out isn't going to get the job done. And so if a president, as he should, came in and said, look, we're going to clear these guys out, whatever it takes, if it means 100,000 troops going in there, we're going to take care of it. What do you think the American people's response would be then? So, yeah, they may be more aware, but are they willing?

Do they have the will to do whatever it takes to solve the problem? And from my perspective, being aware doesn't mean anything if there isn't a will to follow through and do what it takes. So that's a pretty devastating analysis, Bruce. Point one, the moment is purely fueled by emotion. And as our memories of those two beheadings fade, the American people, you're accusing – well, I don't know what they're accusing, but you're laying blame at the people here. We'll lose interest. Point two, the president of the United States just huffed and puffed and gave a major address, an old-fashioned address from the Oval Office to the nation in which he laid out means to achieve an end which are woefully inadequate. I'm paraphrasing. And then three,

if we do get ourselves in a position, once we start this as it's the dynamic of this kind of thing, that some people, at least military leaders, you'd hope at least would call for means that are adequate. And when it comes to that, the American people won't support them. So we're in a pickle. Is that a fair, is that a fair summary of your point of view? Well, yeah. And it's, it's historically, you know, consistent with democracy. I mean, in 1830-something, Tocqueville made that great statement about, you know, in terms of foreign affairs, democracies have a weakness because they don't have patience for the long term and for sacrifices. And so present discomfort will have more precedence over future discomfort if you don't act. And it's a consequence of the election cycle that, you know, every two years we're changing and we're cycling people in. And, you know, this is, I think, what we've been seeing for the last several years. Now, look, I agree with the estimation of

Obama as worse than Jimmy Carter. I mean, in Jimmy Carter's favor, there still was a Soviet Union with, what, 40,000 warheads or whatever. And so that imposed a limit on the exercise of American power. We couldn't always do what we needed to do because we had to take that into account. But there is nothing that can prevent right now the United States from utterly destroying ISIS, completely wiping it out. Now, the aftermath of that, that's a whole other issue. That's a whole other question. So this is purely political. And if something's political, it's because the people will be dissatisfied. They'll have this sugar high of outrage and, yeah, we need to do something. Six months later, something else will come along. Here's what really, though, sort of annoys me about what's going on. This should have gone on in 11 or in 12 over Benghazi. All right. Look, two journalists get beheaded on a film. That's horrible. That's terrible. We need to do something about Benghazi, the whole nother

matter geopolitically and from other. And, you know, who was it? Muskie Mondale. I forget which one of those losers said this. Where's the outrage at that moment when the American people that was our guy, Bob Dole, just angry? Was it Bob Dole? I'm sorry. To the spirit of Bob Dole, I apologize. I apologize for for mingling, mixing him up with a with a mediocre Democrat. That should have been the moment when this country said we want to go over there and we want to wipe those guys out because that was an ambassador. That was three brave heroes like the Spartans at Thermopylae. And it passed with nary a whisper. If it hadn't been for Fox News harping on this and keeping it going, it would have already been forgotten.

So, Bruce, Peter, you know, that suggested to me that the will is not there in a significant majority of the people. So, OK, so that's exactly what I wanted to tease out here. Your book is Obama's Foreign Policy of Empty Words. But what you're saying right now is the trouble is the American people themselves. George W. Bush went to war in March of 2003. Yes, right. He went to war. That's when we invaded Iraq. And he failed to take the American people with him.

He failed – by which I mean he failed to sustain enough support among the people to carry out the war as it emerged over the next five years, right? So Barack Obama, sitting president of the United States, if he has this fickle public, he's doing about what you could – he's making reasonable judgments about what little you can do what little you can do before the public loses interest and turns its back on you the way they did on george w bush the fault lies not with barack obama but with the american people is that the argument you want to make no the fault lies with barack obama and a certain number of the American people, to the latest polls, about two-thirds, who say, you know, we should back off in foreign affairs and we should do something over there in Iraq, preferably, you know, through the air,

because that doesn't risk casualties, and that makes a lot of telegenic video, and we all like that, things blowing up. So it's both. But this is the moment when you have a leader. You need a great leader who can bring the people with him, who can galvanize them. that in our age of uh youtube of eye photos of instant circulation and communication of uh information and images that not even a lincoln or roosevelt or demosthenes could have you know galvanized the people that's that's a whole nother argument well wait obama the blame for obama is

his failure of leadership but kind of it's robbing. Just one last question. I think it's. Yes. We've been at war for 12 years. I mean, that's a long war. If the American people are a little war weary. Do you blame them? No, I don't blame them. But A, this isn't being at war for 12 years isn't like the three years we were at war in World War II. We had no rationing stamps. We had no absence of nylons and coupons.

You had to have to buy gasoline, buying war bonds. We didn't have the numbers of casualties and the number of families that were devastated as they were in World War II. So when we say we've been at war 12 years, but it hasn't really hit the bulk of the American people. Those military families, yes, they have borne the brunt of it. And the rest of us can sort of go on in our lives like, yeah, this stuff's happening over there. I can watch it on the news. And again, in a democracy, yeah, you blame the people. I mean, the people who vote a certain way, not all of them, the people who vote a certain way, of course they have some responsibility. They make the choice.

They elected Barack Obama twice. So I just think that it's more convenient to sort of scapegoat one person, one leader, or Congress as we like to do. And if I went to Congress, I'd do nothing in Congress. And then we shift the responsibility from our own choices, our own lack of information, our own inattentiveness, our own selfish interest that we predicate our vote on. And I think we need to bring that back into the equation and say, look, I hate politicians as much as anybody, but somebody puts them into office. So Bruce – Somebody votes for him. Bruce Peter here. Final question. You sound very pessimistic. And I'm suggesting that because precisely because you're saying it's not all Barack Obama's fault.

It's the fault of the American people. And according to the latest poll, something like two thirds of the American people. So if two thirds of the American people lack the resolve and the Republican sense of virtue, small R Republican sense of virtue required to defend the nation, then we're done. Then it's just a kind of slow, sickening decline. It may take decades. As Adam Smith said, there's a lot of ruin in a nation. We know Rome took a good century and a half to, well, depends on when you want, but it was a long century and a half to, well, it depends on when you want, but it was a long time before it fell. But fundamentally, that's the phase we're in. Is that so? Or are you more optimistic in a way that I'm missing so far?

Well, you know, at the end of the book, I had a conclusion where I said, you know, I got to say something positive because, you know, this is a real downer. We still have the Constitution. We still have federalism. We still have the mechanisms, those geniuses in Philadelphia put into place. And what we will take will be some rude, devastating wake-up call. And then I think the people will galvanize and then i think they will end up doing the right thing i think as churchill said that you know americans will try everything but in the end they'll end up doing the right thing i still think our institutional structure our american character uh federalism uh etc give us the resources that when that horrible moment comes we will still be able to do the right thing.

Rather than the British, as I think, who just decided, meh, you know, declines like a warm bath, we'll just slip right into it and putter along. So I think that's the case for optimism, is that the institutions that we have, the political institutions that we have, and the American character that still persists, when the moment comes, they'll respond. The sad thing is it's going to take that moment.

This country will only be saved by another 9-11. Is that Bruce Thornton's conclusion? Well, 9-11 didn't seem to do it, so it might need to be something. It doesn't have to be that. It could be an all-out to be something. You know, it doesn't have to be that. It could be an all out depression or something. don't, will be the moment when we know whether we're going to, we're going to remain powerful or we are going to decline. Well, when you have a wake up call,

you can always slap the snooze button. I think what you're talking about is somebody, you're talking about somebody actually coming into your room and punching you awake. At which point you reach for the gun into the bed and you realize, Oh, I've been downsizing my gun under the bed thing for the last 10 years or so. Gosh,

that was a mistake. Ah, well, you know, you can't spell doom without D and you can't oh, I've been downsizing my gun under the bed thing for the last 10 years or so. Gosh, that was a mistake. Ah, well, you know, you can't spell doom without D, and you can't spell your book either without several of them. Democracy's dangers and discontents, the tyranny of the majority from the Greeks to Obama. Bruce Thornton, we thank you for this uplifting, cheerful way to push us into the weekend here. Going out with a smile on our face and a song in our hearts. We'll talk to you later. Enjoy your weekend, folks. Thank you, Bruce.

Well, you can't, you know, D, doom, despair, democracy, danger, discontent, degrade and destroy. Two other words that the president likes to use. And of course, if you want to degrade and destroy your face, use some cheap blade. If you want to have your face smooth and happy because you've used the proper tools and emollients, then that's why you want to go to Harry's Shave and get your razor. Harry's.com.

They're less than a year old, and they're already disrupting, there's another D word, the shaving industry by offering a better shaving experience at a better value. I know those guys like Schick or Gillette. What does the company do? It makes amazing German-engineered blades, and they care so much about this, they bought the factory, as the guy used to say. It's a 93-year-old German factory that turns out the finest blades in the world, and you can have them delivered to your house. That's right.

No more going down to the store and paying huge amounts of money, overpriced amounts of money, for blades that just don't do it and leave you bleeding and cut and despairing over the fact that hair grows out of your face. Oh, what do you do? Don't go to laser surgery. Don't go to those Brazilians for the jaw. No, Harry's will give you, brought to your house, a blade that's half the price of the competition. So need I say more? We've been saying this about Harry's.

All the guys here on the podcast have scraped one of those elegant blades across their face and experienced the Harry's difference. At harrys.com, you can use the promo code RICOCHET and you will save $5 off your first purchase. Go there. Do it. And do so to thank them for sponsoring this, the Ricochet

podcast, which I might mention is also brought to you by Encounter Books. This week, this month's featured title is Making David into Goliath on the World Turned Against Israel by Joshua Mrafchik. And let me read from you the praises. This book traces the process by which material pressures and intellectual fashions reshaped world opinion of Israel.

Initially, terrorism, oil, blackmail, and the sheer size of the Arab Muslim populations gave the world powerful inducements to back the Arab cause. Then someone in the background coughed. Meanwhile,

a prevalent new paradigm of leftist orthodoxy in which class struggle was supplanted by the noble struggles of people of color, created a lexicon of rationales for taking sides against Israel. Thus, nations can behave cravenly while striking a high-minded pose and aligning themselves with the Middle East conflict. Now, this book, 15% off it or any other Encounter Books offering, if you go to EncounterBooks.com and use the coupon code RICOCHET at the checkout.

We thank Encounter Books for sponsoring and use the coupon code RICOSHET at the podcast or use RICOSHET at the checkout. We thank EncounterBooks for sponsoring this, the RICOSHET podcast. And I will then, with live broadcast from an elevator somewhere in some fancy, far-flung, spirited about the world to tell them of his new book, we have David Limbaugh. His new book is Jesus on Trial, available now, Lawyer's Brief Christianity. And of course, he's an author, columnist, lawyer from Cape Girardeau, and the guy we like to call El Rush Bro. Now, David, I have to ask you, first of all, thank you for sending me the book, the autograph, nonetheless.

My mother-in-law was so impressed. She came to stay. I put it on the nightstand. Yes, why yes, David did send me his letter, she did, don't we? We'll get to that. Well, we have to. We've been arguing, discussing and bashing each other in the head in a friendly fashion about 9-11. I want to go back to the speech that the president made. I thought that the most it was one of the most extraordinary mishmashes that I've that I've heard to begin with telling everybody that the most important thing that we have to take away from this speech

is that the Islamic State is not Islamic, and then to wander off into praising our universities. That was not exactly a call to arms, a defense of America. How did you hear the president's speech, and what takeaways did you get? First takeaway, I have to preannounce the fact that there is elevator music in my room, even though I'm no longer in the elevator. What is that distracting? That's almost as distracting as Obama's speech. Yes, I couldn't, I didn't hear the speech because I was on the train from New York to D.C. because I am on a mission with this book.

And I had more important things to do than listening to this mundane speech. I am kidding a mission with this book, and I have more important things to do than listening to this mundane speech. I am kidding, of course, but when you hear the speech, when you read the speech, you have to conclude that this guy is seriously out to lunch. He's wedded to the idea that the great evil, the focus of evil in the modern world in the last decade has been Bush's war on Iraq, and that elevated the left to new heights. And so they have a vested interest in continuing that narrative, and that's why he'll never even consider boots on the ground in Iraq, so that if we end up sending 100,000 or 200,000 troops to combat ISIS in the Middle East, they'll be called

advisors. We have 200,000 advisors in Iraq because we promised we would never put soldiers and boots on the ground. And then he refuses to say that they are out of his law and that they're a state. He keeps diminishing the threat. I didn't see much coherent about the speech, except that he is blaming Bush still about how terrible the economy is, the worst economy ever. But I didn't see much. What did you guys see? David, David, David, Peter here. Could I just

ask you a question that'll that'll get us to your book, Jesus on Trial? Is what does Obama's speech have to do with my book? I'm about to show you. I'm about to show you. Okay. I'm about to show you. I'm setting it up, and then James, who is the master of the segue, will take whatever you say and get us to your book,

without any further delay, unless you introduce the delay. So here's the question. George W. Bush and Barack Obama have both told us that, quote, Islam is a religion of peace, close quote. Is it? And if you would like, you may contrast Muhammad with Jesus. Well, I've always been fascinated by that approach. I don't know if George Bush, I think, by the way, he's a God-fearing Christian guy, and even though I didn't agree with some of the stuff that he did, I agree with a lot of what he did, and I think he's a very decent, honorable man with the highest integrity, and I really appreciate that, and I think all the Bushes are that way in that immediate family. But I think he considered himself, he realizes there's

billions of Muslims in the world, and even if he doesn't fully believe that it's a religion of peace, I think it was important for him to carry the message until they show that they're not peaceful. They're entitled to a presumption of peacefulness. I wish they would voice their objections more strenuously to the radical elements. But, you know, there's a large percentage, not a large, a significant percentage of Islamists who are extremists. There are a significant percentage of those who will readily condone it, who will not condemn it, who will cheer it,

you know, in Palestine and all the rest. But I don't think they probably view it the same way. I think Obama has a sympathy based on growing up in Indonesia or whatever, saying that the sweetest sound he ever heard is a Muslim call to prayer. And I think he has his blinders on about even the radicalism that can spring from it, plus his leftist, distorted worldview, which tells him that man is perfectible on a linear path to enlightenment except for conservatives. There is no evil in the world. Man is perfectible, and if all you need to do is sweet-talk Islam because terrorism arises out of poverty and the West's hate and mistreatment of other

cultures. So as long as we will mollify them, tweet talk them, and redistribute our wealth to them, they will not be radical. It blows my mind that anybody could think that, but I think Obama actually thinks that, and we're witnessing the results of his world view right now, plus the sympathy toward Islam. And I'm not saying he's a Muslim, I just think he's affectionate toward it because of his background, for better or worse. But the way it contrasts with Christianity is that Christianity does not advocate—there's no interpretation of Scripture, I think, that could lead to this kind of extremism.

There are certain things that occurred in the Bible in a limited way in the Old Testament. We could talk about that, but the Christian message is to be loving, and while we have Christians, because Christians are sinners just like every other God-created human being, Christians may be rude and mean and do bad things, but they don't get their authority for doing those bad things in any interpretation of Scripture. Well, Peter asked you a very black-and-white question, and using a lot of words you managed to shift the issue to something less than a Manichean response, which brings us to being a lawyer. I know that term.

I know. Don't think you're going to fool me. I'm educated. I know that duality, evil and good, and we can talk about that. I'm educated. I'm educated. I know that's the duality, evil and good, and we can talk about that. I'm educated. I'm enlightened. I was bringing it around to your legal training in which we stand of all, which you applied to your book, Jesus on Trial. And I just ran to the guest room to get my copy to find that my mother-in-law has taken it, which is, I'll have to retrieve it next time I'm down in Arizona. So describe for the audience the book and why, for example, it might appeal to somebody who is not, you know, who isn't looking for inspirational, as they call it, literature, who wants an intellectual approach to gospel.

Tell them what you were trying to do and who you were trying to reach with this book. Okay, I was, I came to this as a skeptic. I always believed in God, but in fact, I even asked my dad how it's possible that Nikita Khrushchev couldn't believe in God when I was 10 years old. I couldn't understand that. You see the gloriousness of the universe, and it's impossible, I think, to deny. It takes more faith to deny that this was created by an intelligent designer. Now, that doesn't get you to the biblical God, but there's proof in my, evidence in my book, that Christianity's truth claims are in fact true,

and I approach it from all comprehensive categories. You know, I talk about the reliability of the documents that come down to us largely as written. They're more reliable. We have more manuscripts, earlier manuscripts, and more accurately transcribed manuscripts than any other document or book from the ancient world. We have more writers, more reliable writers, than any other book from the ancient world does. But I approach this as a skeptic, thinking I can relate to other skeptics in a way that trained theologians or pastors could not. And so this describes my faith journey and how ultimately my study of theology, scripture, and apologetics led me to the conclusion that the Bible really is true,

that it came down to us as originally written, that it tells about the story of a real human being that lived in history who came to earth as God incarnate to die for our sins. And there's a big difference, by the way. You might say, well, the adherents of other religions were willing to die for their beliefs. What makes the Christian martyrs so unique? And Gary Habermas, a New Testament expert, gave a great answer to that question, and that is that the Bible, the apostle, Jesus the apostle, saw him in the flesh, his resurrection appearances, and he made 12 at least resurrection appearances at different times, different places, different amounts of people,

500 people at one time that Paul recorded in the 50s AD, so only 20 years after Christ died and was resurrected, and enough people were around to challenge what he was saying, if it was false, and he made the statement in the very area it happened, which is where the gospel sprang up, that this stuff was untrue, they would have been making fools of themselves. But the difference in this adherence of the Christian faith is that they didn't just form an ideology out of some, they didn't fabricate some ideology out of some, they didn't fabricate some ideology about something they believed in that sounded rational. They formed their faith based on an actual historical event they witnessed in real life, which changed them from

feckless cowards who were denying Jesus and were in despair after he died to the most bold proclaimers and declarants of the gospel that anyone has ever seen. And you say, well, still, that's not, it could have been an hallucination. No, you couldn't have an hallucination on that degree by people who weren't expecting it. And also, why would these, this is what occurs to me as I think through this—because this was based on history, and Habermas says, what would you rather believe, a truth that you—an ideology that you really think is true, or that you saw two people last week? His point is, the disciples, the apostles, were basing their faith on something they witnessed in the flesh. Jesus ate with them, he ate with them, I mean, he ate with them,

they touched him, he talked to them, he was bodily resurrected, and they knew it. Why would they then go martyr themselves? It's one thing to say you could martyr yourself about an ideology you weren't absolutely sure was true because you had no tangible evidence, but why would they martyr themselves based on seeing somebody if they hadn't seen him? Everything would have been negated. If the tomb was still, if it wasn't empty, if he hadn't actually died, if he hadn't actually been bodily resurrected, why would they make up a claim for the benefit of exposing themselves to martyrdom? They would know it wasn't true. They would know it wasn't true. Yes. David, Peter here. So we know you as a lawyer sift through the evidence and you establish that we have more documents and more reliable documents they believed that they were eyewitnesses to an event.

St. Paul made claims in history in that moment that could have been widely refuted. So you establish that these people really believed what they were saying, and you establish that they had such a profound effect in the ancient world at that moment that it reverberated, the events, the Christian events reverberated in a way down through history that nothing else ever has. You establish all that. What is the place of faith? Yeah, so this has been transmitted down to us. We weren't there, and if we look at this, we have to examine the evidence,

and I submit that we Christians aren't anti-science, aren't anti-intellectual. That's a popular culture myth. We weigh the evidence. It is real. Science points to intelligent design, but more recent discoveries and accurate, objective weighing of the evidence points to it. So we don't suspend our rational faculties when we approach Christianity. We're admonished to love the Lord with all of our mind. Proverbs tells us to acquire wisdom. So Christianity is not anti-intellectual. However, when you get to the point of believing

in the proposition, and you intellectually assent to the truth that Christianity, that Jesus actually lived, and all these things happened, that still doesn't constitute saving faith. I don't believe in either the Protestant or Catholic tradition. You have to then take a step of faith. By that I mean it's not just an intellectual belief, and there's a little bit of a translation issue in the English language. You have to put your trust and your faith in Jesus Christ to forgive your sins and to redeem you for eternal life. And so that's a leap of faith, and it's an act of the will.

It's an act of the volition. Well, so you say, well, it's a rational. No, because it's based on rationality. There's nothing incompatible between reason and faith. It's just that it's a step further based on reason, and it's a rational step further based on the overwhelming way of the evidence, but it's ultimately about a relationship with Jesus Christ and placing your trust in him for a certain life. So, I'm sorry. So, you can say something happened. This is not a fairy tale, and anyone who takes a fair look at the evidence must conclude that.

Whether you take what happened all those years ago and those who remain faithful to it today, whether you take that into your own life is up to you and a matter of faith. take what happened all those years ago and those who remain truthful, faithful to it today, whether you take that into your own life is up to you and a matter of faith. Is that fair? Yes, that's fair. Okay. Over to Rob. Rob, the house skeptic. Well, yeah. So my question, David, is this. Are you more religious now since you started writing the book i mean has the book been uh uh has it has it has it solidified your faith yeah yeah i really the truth is it's a little bit misleading i think some people think that i uh just undertook this book and became a believer in the process of writing that's not no harry crocker wouldn't have approached me to write it if he didn't know i was

already a believer it reflects 20 years of intensive on and off, I mean sporadic, but intensive when I did its study of doctrine, theology, faith, and all that. And I will answer your question this way. Yes, the more I study, the closer I get to the flame, the more I'm engaged in Scripture and prayer, the more I know it's true. You can't help but be infected by the truth, the closer you get to it. And as my pastor is fond of saying, we Christians leak if we're not engaging in the spiritual disciplines, prayer, worship, fasting. And I'm not a good pastor, by the way. I'm more of a glutton on the glutton side. The more you pray and exercise the spiritual disciplines and nurture that relationship with Christ and the Holy Spirit and the Father, the more religious, if you want to call it that, you become.

Can I ask you – I want to ask you one last incendiary question. Not about Christianity, but when – this country has gone through some periods of great awakening. We had kind of a mini great awakening in the 70s where evangelical Christianity kind of like really expanded in popularity and sort of its reach. and they start reading and they start becoming more religious and more observant, that good things happen in their lives, but essentially bad things don't happen in the world. Whereas another great religion or large religion, people of the book, people who believe a good portion of the truth of what is in the Bible, right? In the Koran, the Koran sort of adopts many of the – all of the prophets from the Old Testament and Jesus is a prophet in the Koran. Mary is a figure in the Koran.

They stop short of saying that Jesus – they're very careful that Jesus was not divine, but he's a figure in the Koran. Why is it that when that religion experiences what is now really, you have to say, it's enormous growth, powerful growth and powerful reconnection of what used to be secular societies to a really highly religious interpretation, why is that so dangerous? What's the difference between those two religions? Well, of course, I happen to believe that the triune God of the Bible is the God of the universe, and if there is a God of the universe, then he's monotheistic, he is that God. And so when you say that Jesus is a great prophet, you know, C.S. Lewis had the great

trilemma, Lord, liar, or lunatic. He was either, when he claimed to be God, and there's no question, by the way, you can't read the book of John, for example, and doubt that he claimed to be the great I Am, Jehovah of the Old Testament. He claimed to be God, so he was either a liar, a lunatic, or the God himself. Right. I'm just speaking from that. He claimed to be God, so he was either a liar, a lunatic, or a god himself. I'm just speaking from the – just that scripturally and stories and names and traditions, there is a lot about Judaism and Christianity and Islam that is connected. These are religions that sort of grew up –

Especially Judaism. But what I'm asking for is the difference, is that when people become more religious in Islam, when they have an awakening, I get nervous as a secular person. As a secular nonbeliever, I'll be honest. But when people tell me they've gotten more religious in a Christian faith, I feel great. And I'm asking you to tell me why. Well, I think it's almost a rhetorical question. I mean, it's what we talked about earlier. There's a lot of passages in the Koran that can be credibly read to justify the things we're seeing. And by the way, that shouldn't be offensive to radical Islam,

because they're the ones who adhere to those kind of interpretations. Now, I found it amazing that somebody as smart as Christopher Hitchens would often conflate the religions and say just the opposite of what you're saying, that all this violence and hate has created the name of religion. And I don't see that. And yeah, maybe historically there was some, but nothing on the level we see now. And it very much concerns me. see that. And yeah, maybe historically there was some, but nothing on the level we see now. And it very much concerns me. I'm no expert in Islam or in the Quran, but I agree with you. The more, it seems like it grows at the sword, by the sword, as opposed to evangelism. And there's coercion and submission. And I don't think that's even debatable. That's what it's all about, submission.

And you either pay or you surrender or you submit or you convert. And Christianity doesn't do that. Christianity does not force anybody into the religion. So it's more of a loving approach. If you either embrace God or you don't, it's your choice. Now, some hardcore Calvinists may reject that, but I'm not a loving approach. If you either embrace God or you don't, it's your choice. Now, some hardcore Calvinists may reject that, but I'm not a Calvinist, and I think Jesus doesn't want to lose any sheep. He gets more joy at one person returning to the fold, one sheep returning to

the fold, and the 99 that have already been there. So I think Christianity is a religion of love, so does Judaism. So I'm not going to condemn Islam. You can form your own conclusion, but I think that Christianity has the truth, and the truth to me is Jesus Christ, the way, the truth, and the life. But I have enormous respect for Jews. Jesus was a Jew. Jews brought us the law. God had a sacred covenant, the Abrahamic covenant, with Jews. And so we're attached at the hip, a complete difference between Christians and Jews and the other two and Muslims. We're not hostile toward any religion. Christianity believes, in fact, the tradition of religious freedom springs out of Christianity,

not out of the secular and light. Right, right. And so we encourage all kinds of religious expression, and I don't fault or judge anybody else, but I'm not going to deny what I believe to be the truth for the sake of appeasing somebody. I'm going to tell you what I think the truth is, but I encourage anybody else to argue and say what they think the truth is, and I wouldn't encourage violence or suppression or mistreatment of any other ideology, adherent of any ideology or faith. They have their right to think what they want. Oh, come on, man. The Crusades. Come on, man. The Inquisition. All you guys want to do to support Israel is so that, you know, you think Jesus is going to come back and convert all the Jews.

I'm sorry. I'm just transcribing for the people who hate Fox News. Before you give us the out, David, Peter here. Will you come back as soon as the Blue Yeti can arrange it? We owe a podcast to our special Reagan and Thatcher members. And I'd love to continue talking about Jesus on trial with you to the extent of half an hour sometime when you can fit it into your book tour. I would be honored because on one condition. What's that? Go ahead. No, no.

And then I said, well, then we'll just we'll just start with the Crusades and the Inquisition and take it from there, baby. No, the condition is that you don't synopsize my book more eloquently than I do, as you did earlier today. You think that's fair? Do you think that's right? Does it make you feel like a big man, Mr. Hoover Institute? David, that was my little effort to put a bucket in the ocean just to get a little something that could get my answer. That was so good. I wish I could have taken notes because you just put in about 30 seconds what I stumbled

around for 10 minutes. I have stated it more eloquently because I feel more comfortable when I'm not around intellectuals of your guys' caliber. So I'm much more eloquent when I'm down on my level with fellow Neanderthals. I got some eloquence in me, but I don't know. It's just when I'm more comfortable. You guys make me nervous because of your degree. Yeah, of course.

You're all Eastern elitists. Well, some of you are Stanford. I know. I know. Think tank guys. And James, you use these Manichaean stuff. We got to get into duality. You know that St. Augustine, I know you call him Augustine, you snob. He embraced Manichaeism for a while. You think I didn't know that? Yes, you did. Yes,

I know. Yeah, you absolutely did. Thank you. You Catholics love St. Thomas Aquinas so much. We better talk about him. I love him too, by by the way, and I quote him in the book. And guess what else? Being the ecumenical guy that I am, I quote Fulton Sheen with great reverence and respect, who gave me insight that I never would have had to see that Jesus is the only person that ever came to the earth to live life backwards. Now, crunch on that for a while if we get into this podcast. I find it so fascinating. He came to live in backwards. Now, crunch on that for a while if we get into this podcast.

I find it so fascinating. He came to live in order to die. He didn't come into the earth to live. You could say the same thing about Merlin in the Once and Future King, but that's a matter for another podcast. Read the book. Jesus on Trial. No, David Limited doesn't get him off on a technicality. It's a story that you want to read, and regardless of your position on the book, Jesus on Trial. No, David Limited doesn't get them off on a technicality.

It's a story that you want to read, and regardless of your position on the faith, we'll buttress, bolster, and inform you about how the issues of Christianity and belief run these days from a guy that we love and love to have back on the podcast as soon as possible. I know you've got a million more interviews. Go, go, go. Fly like the wind, and we'll talk to you later, David. Talk to you later, David. Thank you so much, guys. Take care.

The, yes, David. Later, David. Thank you so much guys. Take care. The, uh, yes. St. Augustine, Augustine, Augustine. You say Augustine.

I say Augustine. Um, Augustine. I say Augustine too. Well, actually at Bishop, old Bishop of Hippo among friends says we, sure.

Yeah. The Bishop of Hippo in England. They say Augustine. That's all. That's probably what he's getting at. David is getting it, what David is getting at. But I love that man, David Limbaugh. Well, good for him too to be on a book tour.

Such things are rare these days as I'm sure Rob will tell you. I mean I'm self-publishing my novels. So any book tour that I do consists of walking down the street and saying to somebody, hey, look for it on Amazon. But the book publishing industry being what it is these days, I just decided to go around them for a while. That's not going to be the case with the next collection of essays that Rob and I are both going to be in. Peter, though, still working on his magnum opus, The Cold War. And I'm wondering exactly how you guys think this period in which we live

is going to be seen. Now, when we talk about the Cold War, people say, Putin, don't start World War III. I'm sorry, there wasn't World War III. It just wasn't as hot as World War II, and we won. There was a global ideological military struggle called the Cold War. And it would seem to me now that what we're in now would be World War IV, which sounds preposterous to people.

But is that what we're actually in? And we sit here in America, as we did in World War IV, which sounds preposterous to people, but is that what we're actually in? And we sit here in America, as we did in World War II, largely, you know, untouched from its ravages, but yet on it burns. Do you think, let's look ahead. Do you think, as per the polls, as per the fears that ISIS, ISIL, IS, whatever the hell, the head shoppers, are going to try something here and try it soon and try something big. Oh, I'm sure they'd like to. That's purely a question of what their capacity is and I don't know that. I hope that we have very good intelligence. I hope between us and the Brits and the Mossad, we have some people who have infiltrated already and we know exactly what they're up to.

But I have – listen, anybody who so embraces the culture of death that they put two beheadings on film – excuse me. It's two beheadings of Americans on film. The film that's been coming out of mass beheadings of – this is a culture of death and would they like to detonate a bomb in this country? I have absolutely no doubt. There. How is that for a cheerful way to end the show? No, I think that's true. I think they would.

I mean the calculation, the sort of neocon post-9-11 Bush administration calculation was two things. One, if you can create a democracy or you can create a working representative democracy in the region out of Iraq, you should try. Iraq seemed at that point to be the most likely candidate. I'm removing Afghanistan from the calculation because Afghanistan was always – it was always a cleanup operation of just trying to kill bad guys, right? Iraq was an actual nation-building operation, which a lot of us had then, have now. A lot of the Americans today have very queasy thoughts about. We're not very good at it. I don't know if anyone is very good at it.

But all right. So we at it. I don't know if anyone is very good at it. But all right. So we did it. The plan B was, well, if it erupts into civil war, if the region erupts into civil war, then they're going to be occupied for the next 20 years, 25 years without a Soviet union as they had in the 50s and 60s playing geopolitical chess and trying to win people over, like win Nasser over, win strongmen in the region over. They will be fighting each other, which is better than fighting us. So there are people who say, well, listen, I know they're going to chop off the heads of – every now and then, an American journalist is going to get – a naive American journalist is going to fall into the hands of someone to get his head chopped off. And that's just the price you got to pay. Or they are going to continue to fight each other and they're going to take Mosul and Fallujah and then lose Mosul and Fallujah and they're going to fight Assad and they're going to lose Assad and it's going to be another faction fighting Assad.

And as long as the entire region is in flames, interrupting the civil war, we can go about our business. That's kind of the cold-blooded calculation here, right? Right. I'm not – the problem with that is the problem with sort of – frankly, sort of the Bush-era attitudes is they always believe there's one or two or three choices, whereas there's a fourth choice, which is like, well, what if it all just gets the fan and ISIS appears and then gets enough success that also they manage to hook up in a network with someone else? And if you read enough alarmist articles, you say, and what if a Mexican drug cartel says, sure, we'll send you into Texas, no problem. All you got to do is get to Mexico City and we'll have you get there too. What if that happens?

So all these things sort of occur and what would you end up with is like, OK, the choice is – do we prefer a stable Middle East that's filled with strong men, strong men who by the way will use the money they make, the petrodollars or whatever it is they've got to buy off the opposition by – which the Saudis have done, to buy off the opposition and say, listen, if you're mad about stuff, don't be mad at the House of Saud. Go blow up a building in the United States, which was essentially what the Saudis and sort of the Wahhabi kind of cult did and continues to do. Or is it better that we say to the House of Saud, no, no, no. The next person to get beheaded on YouTube is going to be the king of Saudi Arabia. Now, I don't know the answer

because there's probably is not a good answer. But I suspect that the pendulum is going to swing between one of those two things. This much seems clear, I think. So let me see if you agree. After brawling at the opening of the show, let's see if we agree on this. I don't believe there's anybody, including on our side. So what do I mean by our side? I suppose the most interventionist neoconservative, Bill Kristol. Maybe we can check this with Bill. Maybe we can invite him on the next podcast. I don't believe even Bill Kristol would say, oh, no, no, no. Of course, we can establish democracy in Iraq. We just didn't stick with it long enough. I think the consensus now would be that was an overreach. We tried to do more than we can do. Nevertheless, what we must do, and this is now the fight, whether Obama's

doing it enough or not, what we must do is remain totally alert to all the scenarios that Rob just pointed out. We have to have superb intelligence, pour money into intelligence. We have to have agents in the Mexican cartel. We have to have agents who are watching what's happening in Korea. And of course we have to have agents throughout the Middle East. We have to have intelligence. I beg your pardon. What do they call it?

ELEC intelligence? ELIN. Thank you. We have to have intelligence. I beg your pardon. What do they call it? Eland. Eland. Thank you. Eland. We have to have electronic intelligence. We have to rely with – we have to do all that and then we have to kill the bad guys. Now, that runs against the American impulse in all kinds of ways because we've seen – the country has put up with it but nobody's happy about all these drone attacks in Afghanistan and Yemen. And yet at the same time, very few people are saying, oh, that's cowardly of us. Let's send in 30,000 soldiers and make sure 1,000 of them die so we can feel that it's a fair fight.

But it does make people feel queasy just to be killing bad guys from the air. As best I can tell, Barack Obama, oh, how did I end up as an apologist for Barack Obama? But he's on to something. Oh, my God. I thought- He's on to something. There was an overreach. He doesn't have the country with him. He has to be very careful about the extent of this engagement. And yet he has to engage for the sake of the defense of our own republic. Somewhere in there, I do think there's a consensus. Rand Paul would say, Rand Paul has already said we have to go after ISIS. If you've got Barack Obama and Rand Paul agreeing, you've got a national consensus. I don't know whether it's the right

one. I don't know how long we can sustain it. Here's what I would say, Peter, just to go back to our opening brawl. The one area that I would say that we i i i do blame the culture is in our and i and i think it's i don't think it's new but i think it's it's it's it's a habit we have which is the sort of the childishness of our insistence that there's always a good choice and a bad choice and if you make a bad choice right you know if you support the mujahideen in afghanistan well then you've created 9-11, right? So if you're – because you've got a picture of a Reagan administration official with a container of weapons giving to the Mujahideen fighting the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1980, 81. Well, then what did you expect?

Those people are going to go crazy. They're going to blow up the World Trade Center. You're always going to have these unintended consequences you're always going to have a turn of the wheel you're always going to have one of those things and we seem to believe and i think this president who is just cripplingly naive because of course he is because he's an ivy league educated do nothing right he's he's me like i i get it me too. I get it. He's cripplingly – this president believes that there is a – he's – the reason he can't arm the guys in Syria is because he knows that eventually those arms will be turned. The reason he can't do this is because he knows that in ten years, they will be saying nasty things about him. He knows that because that's what making big decisions is, is taking a risk that it kind of turns around and it turns out that the decision you made wasn't perfect and

had consequences. And that's just the way that life is, but some people don't want to live in the world. I mean, I'll just go back to what James said, his first question at the very beginning, what will this era be called, right? World War IV, World War IX, whatever. But I don't know what it's going to be called but it does seem like it's all of a piece. It does seem like there is the – it is the rise of the second or third world people and they are – the militarization or their – I don't know what I would say is their empowerment, right, either by a death cult plus weapons and money or the ability to – or in China, the ability to make 100 iPhones a day and to not have to face famine again. In India, it's roughly the same thing. So you're seeing a whole bunch of people around the world who are essentially irrelevant and unimportant to the day-to-day goings-on, right? I mean 100 million people starved in China.

Nobody cared except the Chinese leaders, right? It didn't impact us. But now it will impact us if it happens again or it won't happen again. So that's to me what's happening is that the prosperity of the West, frankly, has caused this uplift in the world and there's good things about it and bad things about it. One of the bad things about it is that we have a bunch of lunatics who have signed on to a crazy psychopathic cult and we are by our own weird, impotent, Western, progressive liberalism unable to frame the vocabulary to condemn it and so we're're kind of punching shadowboxing at it, sending drones and then sending people

and then trying to start a democracy and trying to do all these different things because we keep thinking that there's a solution and there may not be. It may be 100 years of stamping out tiny little fires and hoping that more buildings don't come down. There were more points in that thing that you just said, Rob, than there are items in my wife's purse. I apologize. I apologize. I don't know where to begin. Except for the sedimentary layers of her purse,

which have Trident gum and lipstick at the bottom of it. Chapstick. There's a melted chapstick at the bottom of what I just said. Keys, bobby pins, and those little clips that lawyers always put on their binder clips and all the rest of it. I mean, you make some excellent points, and I'm not sure where to begin except to say maybe this, which has nothing to do with what you said, but will sound like it does because I wanted to. No, it's this. I keep going back to the president's speech last night. The president, if we don't trust Obama necessarily to do what's necessary,

it's because he makes it so damned easy to stare at the man, agog, at the incompetence of leadership. It's one thing to go out there and tell people we're going to bomb them, we're going to degrade them, we're going to destroy them, et cetera. But it's another to sort of anticipate a malaise when when what he made last night was, in essence, his own Jimmy Carter malaise speech. Absolutely. That is a brilliant point. Yes. Without without even saying I know the country is in a malaise, which was a horrible thing to say, he implied it with this litany of wonderful things that are going on in the country right now, which are absolutely irrelevant to the task at hand and the reason that he came out to speak in the first place. I mean, to go from the importance and the imperative nature of this military mission to talking about the strength of American universities is – it tells you so many things. One, that he's really uncomfortable just coming out there and being a military guy. From his initial statement saying, don't blame this on Islam, to his conclusions about the strength of America.

I mean, who exactly is he trying to rally? And who rallied to his side after that? I think one of the reasons that people are out in front of him is because they realize there's so much weakness in the West Wing right now that they want more than they're going to get from this guy. So I think the – hold on. Just one – I know I'm rambling here. But I think one of the reasons that you're finding – Rambling is allowed. I know I'm rambling here, but I think one of the reasons that you're finding a more bellicose spirit in the country is because there's a – not panic, but there's an unease with the sense of how disengaged he seems from what people seem to be a peril that we could – that we ought to be able to manage. That's why people are scared. Not necessarily because there's somebody out there who wants to kill us.

We know that, but it's because we don't seem to have the adequate leadership at the top. But then again, I've just stated the obvious seven times. But this point about the malaise, I think that is absolutely a brilliant insight into what, into the whole tenor of the speech and my little, the way I would put it, or maybe, uh, sort of elaborate your point. I guess what bothered me about the speech was sort of unease. It didn't seem quite right. And I guess if I were to try to put it into words, it would be this. He did not seem completely intent on convincing us. It sounded as though

a great deal of his energy was involved in convincing himself. This was a speech in which he was talking himself into the position before he could get to talking us into it. There was so much about it that was defensive, so much about the delivery that seemed – what did it seem? It seemed uncommitted. It seemed half-hearted. You contrast that with John Kennedy addressing the nation during the Cuban Missile Crisis. John Kennedy did not spend a sentence, let alone paragraph after paragraph, talking about how good the United States was. That was the point of departure.

He had no doubt that he was talking to a country that was self-confident. It wouldn't enter your mind listening to a John Kennedy speech, in particular to that John Kennedy speech, that he'd had to talk himself into defending the country or defending our values. Not a bit of it. And yet with Obama, oh, my Lord, it's almost as though, folks, just a moment. I'll be with you in a moment once I'm convinced myself. Just amazing. Robert, over to you. Anatomy, if I say it's all our fault, but it's all our fault. So I'm just trying – Barack Obama has this idea as the attitude. In fact, he says it about the economy.

His attitude about the economy is the same as the attitude of the world. I inherited this mess, and I'm just trying to make it right. And his attitude about the world is I inherited it, not just from George W. Bush but from legions of these sort of horrible white hegemonic power mongers starting with Thomas Jefferson. And deeply encoded in the DNA of our nation is this sort of bloodlust and this desire to crush indigenous peoples. And I am just trying to untie that knot. And so he does have that attitude. He's definitely the victim of his own – of every single story, he's the victim. Never the – he's never the object.

He's always the subject. So I can see that. Also, there's a certain peevishness to it because he's mad that he has to do it. He's mad that he has to talk. He's mad that he has to make this statement. He's mad that it occurs. He's mad that it's all his decision. He's mad. He's a mad guy. How did the staff let him come to this? That's what he's thinking at some level. Yeah, or just – or why isn't it bending to my will? Why don't you idiots realize how good the economy is given what he was given how the horrible mess that he got and all the wonderful things that he's done?

Why don't you people realize that we've had an uninterrupted spasm of job growth, the likes of which this nation has never seen, and which puts the so-called recoveries of the 80s and 90s into the shade where which they belong bask and glory in this for heaven's sakes why you've got contraceptive coverage paid for by other people and you're probably not out of work and detroit is back and for god's sakes why does anybody complain about him going golfing and can we die it's it it's it's it's just not the sort of thing that it's not the character that you want it you could only make these speeches so much too. It's like there's also this kind of feeling that nothing he says connects to anything that really ever happens. So you start this weird litany of things that seem – all seem half-finished, these unclosed loops of the Obama administration that includes – even little things like bring back our girls. Like, well, are they back?

Nope. Oh, we just forgot that, right? No, we moved on to another hashtag. Syrian chemical weapons. Ukraine, we're going to stop that. Well, we didn't stop that either. All this stuff just sort of kind of erupts and happens and then he gives a speech given and then – and so I think the American people have all these sort of open loops in their head. They're like that's still happening. It's sort of stressing them out I think.

It's as if he's just putting down markers so that when history goes back over the era, they will find him voting present on the right side of the issue. There's no intention of action. It's just when you look at the accumulated positions, they were the correct ones to take, and that's all there is to it. Well, you know what? The correct position for you to take, staring at the mirror, is a smile as you rub your hand over your face and feel how smooth that shave is.

And I say that to the ladies in the audience, too, who may themselves be bearded ladies who work at a circus and find themselves wanting to change jobs. And if you can, if your insurance is portable, we suggest that you do use Harry's products, whatever your gender, to shave. Go to harrys.com and enter that coupon code RICOCHET and you will get yourself a discount on your first shipment. That's right. They bring them to you. That's part of the deal.

Best raisers ever and They bring them to you. That's part of the deal. Best raisers ever, and they bring them to you. And Encounter Books will also send you to your doorstop a book at 15% off the price that you choose if you go to

EncounterBooks.com and enter that coupon code Ricochet as well. We thank them both. We are going to save our pitch for next week. We've got Susan in Seattle, and she gave us a wonderful testimonial as to why you should join Ricochet.

But you know what? Just take Susan's word. Take Philly guy's word. Take everybody who has called Rob's number and sung, spoke, declaimed. That one that used only mime gestures didn't come out very well, but we'll find a way to transfer that to digital somehow. Take their advice, Jake, take their advice and join Ricochet and keep this conservative community going well into the second term of the next Republican administration.

Peter, Rob, always a pleasure. We'll see everybody at the comments at Ricochet 2.0. Fellas, next week. Next week. I got over I got over I got over I got over I got over

I got over I got over I got over Now that's over You've been in my soul I've spent the wonder I've got over Just as soon as I see you A man who made me free He was a man

That let it suffer He died for you and for me I want to thank him Because he taught me I want to thank him Because he taught me Thank you. I wanna thank you for all you've done for me Oh yeah Now I gotta Oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, To the homeland of the soul I'm gonna do the most I might Through travel both day and night The Leper Nation

On the way to the great formation I'm gonna sing Hallelujah I'm gonna sing Oh, he belongs gonna shine Oh, even after me Oh, yeah Oh, oh, oh, oh, oh Oh, oh, oh, oh, oh

Oh, oh, oh, oh, oh Oh, oh, oh, oh, oh Oh, oh, oh, oh, oh Oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, Ricochet. Join the conversation. Thank you, Jesus. you