The Francophiles

We’re a man down this week, as James Lileks is in Reno (no, he did not a shoot a man there just to watch him die), but we have lots to talk about and two great guests to discuss it all with. Our old pal David Limbaugh returns to give us insight into his new book The True Jesus: Uncovering the Divinity of Christ in The GospelsIt’s a fascinating book in which David combines the four Gospel stories into a unified account (though not, he humbly admits, a perfect harmony) and guides readers on a faith journey through the Four Evangelists’ testimonies of the life of Jesus Christ. And yes, we talk about Trump too. Then, if you really want to understand what’s going on in Europe, then you have to go to Europe. Or, at least call someone in Europe. So we rang up John O’Sullivan who knows more about the E.U., Brexit, and the French elections as anyone. Finally, courtesy of Ricochet member @robertmcreynolds, we delve in to the question of sanctuary cities, and while we’re at it, do a drive-by of Berkeley and of Cuba. Yes, Cuba. You’ll have to listen to find out why.

Are you a podcast listener who’s not a Ricochet member? We’ve got a special offer for you — join today at the special price of $2.50 per month and support this content AND read the legendary Ricochet Member Feed as well as comment on podcast posts. Come on! Join us today!

Music from this week’s episode: I Love Paris by Ella Fitzgerald

Does your dog bite, @EJHill?

Subscribe to Ricochet Podcast in iTunes (and leave a 5-star review, please!), or by RSS feed. For all our podcasts in one place, subscribe to the Ricochet Audio Network Superfeed in iTunes or by RSS feed.

Please Support Our Sponsors!

There are 33 comments.

  1. 1
  2. 2
  1. Johnnie Alum 13 Coolidge

    The great Minnesota get-together (AKA Minnesota State Fair) takes place the two weeks before Labor day and ends on Labor Day.

    • #1
    • April 28, 2017, at 3:56 PM PDT
    • Like
  2. Robert McReynolds Inactive

    Looks like I will have to listen to this one.

    • #2
    • April 28, 2017, at 8:04 PM PDT
    • 5 likes
  3. FredGoodhue Coolidge

    I have less of a problem with Obama making big speaking fees than with the Clintons. With the Clintons, the payers had good reason to think that one of them would become President. So there was a potential quid pro quo.

    • #3
    • April 28, 2017, at 9:04 PM PDT
    • 3 likes
  4. FredGoodhue Coolidge

    With the illegal alien problem, many employers knew that many potential hires were illegals, but were ignoring it. I think it’s right that they be required to ignore that legal status.

    With the illegal alien problem and local police, in many areas illegal aliens are the locus of the local crime problem. The police could greatly reduce crime by helping to deport illegal aliens.

    • #4
    • April 28, 2017, at 9:09 PM PDT
    • 1 like
  5. Stina Member

    Considering Orban and the Hungarians being/preferring someone more authoritarian than our tastes would prefer, being a country with 10M and largely homogenous it is a preference that they can afford.

    I don’t think I ever considered that democratically elected central planners were a bad thing if a significant majority preferred it. I was under the impression that such a style does not work in America because we ARE a nation of many smaller “nations”, at least as perceived by our founders. Maryland and Texas need not have the same style of governance so decentralization is preferable.

    This was always something I found bizarre about the EU. If it was to work together in a peaceful manner, I thought the UN had that handled. The EU really felt like some attempt to mimic the worst parts of the US system (a centralized government).

    This was my first podcast and I greatly enjoyed it. Rob Long should keep doing advertisements. He’s charming in an awkward way, lol.

    • #5
    • April 29, 2017, at 5:44 AM PDT
    • Like
  6. rebark Member

    Pictured above: Rob Long takes “swanning about” to new heights.

    • #6
    • April 29, 2017, at 5:48 AM PDT
    • 1 like
  7. Chris Campion Coolidge

    I read this as “spankophiles”, and then suddenly the outfits made sense.

    • #7
    • April 29, 2017, at 5:55 AM PDT
    • Like
  8. Robert McReynolds Inactive

    @peterrobinson I would distinguish the 1986 law from sanctuary cities by saying that private enterprises must comply with federal law. Private industry is not being conscripted into an enforcement role when they comply with the law–in your case ensuring that their workforce not be comprised in part by illegal immigrants. However, the attempted conscription of local law enforcement by the federal government into a role of federal law enforcement violates the tenants of federalism and is a huge overreach of the federal government’s powers. I would say that you guys were closer in analogy to the counterfeit currency example than with a private company having to comply with federal law.

    • #8
    • April 29, 2017, at 7:00 AM PDT
    • 2 likes
  9. Icarus213 Thatcher

    Is there any reason anyone is listening to David Limbaugh other than that he is a Limbaugh? His book is basically a 1st year class at Bible School: nothing added that you can’t find in an introductory course at seminary. He acts as if any of this isn’t 50+ year old evangelical theology.

    • #9
    • April 29, 2017, at 12:13 PM PDT
    • 1 like
  10. Wolverine Coolidge

    @robertmcreynolds, I thought the issue in regards to sanctuary cities was that if a local police department had an illegal in custody, they are supposed to notify the Feds. SF and sanctuary cities were letting them go free. Please pardon my ignorance on this.

    In terms of Obama and speaking fees, no one would give 2 cents about what he thought if her were not an ex-President, which to me means he is profiting from the office. Nixon if memory serves never charged speaking fees as ex-President.

    • #10
    • April 29, 2017, at 3:45 PM PDT
    • 3 likes
  11. Saint Augustine Member

    Ok, @roblong and @peterrobinson and @davidlimbaugh; I’ll do it.

    No, actually I’ll let Matthew Levering, a very fine Catholic historian of theology, do it. You people are interested in theology. Very good. Levering says “all theologians must read” my book!

    • #11
    • April 29, 2017, at 8:07 PM PDT
    • 1 like
  12. John Russell Thatcher

    I always enjoy hearing John O’Sullivan hold forth. I found his comparison and contrast between Mrs. Thatcher and Mrs. May to be especially informative.

    • #12
    • April 29, 2017, at 10:23 PM PDT
    • 3 likes
  13. Eustace C. Scrubb Member

    @roblong You said stumping O’Sullivan was on your bucket list. You got him to admit he didn’t know as much about Poland, so I would consider that a bucket half full.

    • #13
    • April 30, 2017, at 2:19 AM PDT
    • 1 like
  14. Titus Techera Contributor

    Well, since the podcast closes with Ella singing a Cole Porter number, I love Paris, let me recommend my essays on Ella singing Cole on the occasion of the centennial anniversary of her birth.

    • #14
    • April 30, 2017, at 5:13 AM PDT
    • 1 like
  15. RufusRJones Member

    Two things.

    Robert Costa was on Kudlow this weekend. He said that the guys from RINO / purple districts are terrified of voting on any GOP modification of the ACA. Then Charlie Gasparino came on. He said Trump told the Freedom Caucus to just vote on his ACA repeal / modification and don’t even look at the details. It’s very clear to me that the ACA was a purposeful Cloward and Piven strategy to get millions dependent on it and destroy private insurance thus forcing single payer. It’s working perfectly. Trump and the GOP should have done a one year road show of health insurance education before they tried to repeal the ACA.

    Now Trump. People have got to realize that we are in a fascistic thugocracy. See Lois Learner. Look at how the ACA was passed. All centralization and all K Street all the time. Voting just makes it worse. He stuck a monkey wrench in the Leftist machine big time. Being idealistic is not the right approach right now.

    • #15
    • April 30, 2017, at 6:38 AM PDT
    • 2 likes
  16. RufusRJones Member

    The “terra firma” segue was the greatest segue in the history of segues.

    • #16
    • April 30, 2017, at 6:40 AM PDT
    • 4 likes
  17. Robert McReynolds Inactive

    Wolverine (View Comment):
    @robertmcreynolds, I thought the issue in regards to sanctuary cities was that if a local police department had an illegal in custody, they are supposed to notify the Feds. SF and sanctuary cities were letting them go free. Please pardon my ignorance on this.

    In terms of Obama and speaking fees, no one would give 2 cents about what he thought if her were not an ex-President, which to me means he is profiting from the office. Nixon if memory serves never charged speaking fees as ex-President.

    Not according to the reports I have read. The cities are basically taking a stance of non-intervention, meaning they are not going to require their local law enforcement to also enforce federal immigration law. Here is an example from Connecticut:

    Connecticut is one of a handful of states that call themselves sanctuaries for undocumented immigrants. A state law passed in 2013 requires law enforcement agencies to detain an individual for breaking immigration laws if they have been convicted of a felony, are a known gang member, are on a federal terrorism watch list or face criminal charges and have not posted bond.

    http://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/320871-wash-governor-orders-agencies-to-ignore-immigration-requests

    • #17
    • April 30, 2017, at 9:34 AM PDT
    • Like
  18. Robert McReynolds Inactive

    Here is what I was looking for:

    The Connecticut Trust Act, passed in 2013 [during Malloy’s tenure], says law enforcement can only detain an individual on a violation of federal immigration law if they have been convicted of a felony, are subject to pending criminal charges and have not posted bond, have an outstanding arrest warrant, are a known gang member, are on a terror watch list, are subject to a final order of deportation or present an unacceptable risk to public safety.

    Law enforcement should not take action that is solely to enforce federal immigration law,” Malloy and two of his commissioners wrote in the memo to police chiefs. “The federal government cannot mandate states to investigate and enforce actions that have no nexus to the enforcement of Connecticut law or local ordinances.

    https://pjmedia.com/homeland-security/2017/02/24/another-insurrectionist-governor-rears-his-ugly-head/

    • #18
    • April 30, 2017, at 9:43 AM PDT
    • Like
  19. Blue Yeti Admin

    Titus Techera (View Comment):
    Well, since the podcast closes with Ella singing a Cole Porter number, I love Paris, let me recommend my essays on Ella singing Cole on the occasion of the centennial anniversary of her birth.

    One of the reasons this song was chosen for this show.

    • #19
    • April 30, 2017, at 10:35 AM PDT
    • 2 likes
  20. Al Sparks Thatcher

    I just read Robert McReynlold’s original post on this subject and it covers the issue pretty well. I was aware of those issues before his post, and probably should have posted my own, especially how sanctuary cities are not engaged in nullification. Before I read his post, I did hear Epstein and Yoo discuss it on the Law Talk podcast.

    Some thoughts on the Ricochet podcast comments:

    Rob Long used a bad analogy, the “national speed limit” which was imposed in 1973 and lasted in one form or other until 1995. Except on federal reservations, there is no federal speed limit, and minus that, all speed limits were based off of state statute (or where permitted by a state, local ordnance). If a state did not comply, they would lose a portion of federal highway funds, which was mandated by federal statute (not executive order). But at no point, if a state refused to comply with the “national speed limit” would that state be engaged in “nullification”.

    This is also the case with the present “national drinking age” of 21 years old.

    A better example might be the states that have decriminalized marijuana laws. In the case of the drinking age, and driving speed limits, the courts have ruled that the federal government cannot enforce their own laws on the subject, except on federal reservations.

    But strangely the feds can directly enforce federal drug laws, probably on the overreach of commerce clause grounds. But even there, it doesn’t seem that states like Colorado or Alaska are engaged in nullification.

    • #20
    • April 30, 2017, at 2:01 PM PDT
    • 1 like
  21. Robert McReynolds Inactive

    Al Sparks (View Comment):
    I just read Robert McReynlold’s original post on this subject and it covers the issue pretty well. I was aware of those issues before his post, and probably should have posted my own, especially how sanctuary cities are not engaged in nullification. Before I read his post, I did hear Epstein and Yoo discuss it on the Law Talk podcast.

    Some thoughts on the Ricochet podcast comments:

    Rob Long used a bad analogy, the “national speed limit” which was imposed in 1973 and lasted in one form or other until 1995. Except on federal reservations, there is no federal speed limit, and minus that, all speed limits were based off of state statute (or where permitted by a state, local ordnance). If a state did not comply, they would lose a portion of federal highway funds, which was mandated by federal statute (not executive order). But at no point, if a state refused to comply with the “national speed limit” would that state be engaged in “nullification”.

    This is also the case with the present “national drinking age” of 21 years old.

    A better example might be the states that have decriminalized marijuana laws. In the case of the drinking age, and driving speed limits, the courts have ruled that the federal government cannot enforce their own laws on the subject, except on federal reservations.

    But strangely the feds can directly enforce federal drug laws, probably on the overreach of commerce clause grounds. But even there, it doesn’t seem that states like Colorado or Alaska are engaged in nullification.

    I might even go so far as to say that there is no federal statutory basis for the drug laws, at least to my knowledge. I am not aware of a Congressional act outlawing the use of or the distribution of drugs. I have always heard that drugs were classified as illegal by the Nixon administration. Granted I could be wrong there, so forgive me if I am characterizing it wrong.

    • #21
    • April 30, 2017, at 5:32 PM PDT
    • 1 like
  22. Al Sparks Thatcher

    Robert McReynolds (View Comment):
    I might even go so far as to say that there is no federal statutory basis for the drug laws, at least to my knowledge. I am not aware of a Congressional act outlawing the use of or the distribution of drugs. I have always heard that drugs were classified as illegal by the Nixon administration. Granted I could be wrong there, so forgive me if I am characterizing it wrong.

    The Controlled Substances Act of 1970 was a statute that established the framework of federal enforcement of drugs. That and subsequent federal statutes gave the DEA (which was created by that act) and FDA considerable authority to decide which drugs were bad and merited federal enforcement efforts.

    • #22
    • April 30, 2017, at 7:59 PM PDT
    • 1 like
  23. A-Squared Coolidge

    Did I hear David Limbaugh say that the Gospels were written by contemporaries of Jesus?

    I thought that the conventional wisdom was that the earliest Gospel was written some 30 to 70 years after Jesus died.

    • #23
    • May 1, 2017, at 9:43 AM PDT
    • Like
  24. Saint Augustine Member

    A-Squared (View Comment):
    Did I hear David Limbaugh say that the Gospels were written by contemporaries of Jesus?

    I thought that the conventional wisdom was that the earliest Gospel was written some 30 to 70 years after Jesus died.

    The conventional wisdom may well be wrong–or no longer conventional. But even 30-70 years before committing to hard copy is possible for contemporaries. (Naturally, if any of them wait a full 70 years they’ll have to be young starting out and old finishing off.)

    • #24
    • May 1, 2017, at 10:09 AM PDT
    • Like
  25. A-Squared Coolidge

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    A-Squared (View Comment):
    Did I hear David Limbaugh say that the Gospels were written by contemporaries of Jesus?

    I thought that the conventional wisdom was that the earliest Gospel was written some 30 to 70 years after Jesus died.

    The conventional wisdom may well be wrong–or no longer conventional. But even 30-70 years before committing to hard copy is possible for contemporaries. (Naturally, if any of them wait a full 70 years they’ll have to be young starting out and old finishing off.)

    I understand. My question was poorly stated, but there are at least two underlying questions. 1) Do people of faith accept that conventional wisdom as the correct timeline for the writing of the Gospels? 2)In the book, is David arguing against that conventional wisdom?

    I am not what you would call a person of deep faith, so I honestly don’t know the answer to the first, I’m simply curious.

    • #25
    • May 1, 2017, at 12:22 PM PDT
    • 1 like
  26. Robert McReynolds Inactive

    Al Sparks (View Comment):

    Robert McReynolds (View Comment):
    I might even go so far as to say that there is no federal statutory basis for the drug laws, at least to my knowledge. I am not aware of a Congressional act outlawing the use of or the distribution of drugs. I have always heard that drugs were classified as illegal by the Nixon administration. Granted I could be wrong there, so forgive me if I am characterizing it wrong.

    The Controlled Substances Act of 1970 was a statute that established the framework of federal enforcement of drugs. That and subsequent federal statutes gave the DEA (which was created by that act) and FDA considerable authority to decide which drugs were bad and merited federal enforcement efforts.

    Okay, I stand informed then. Thanks.

    • #26
    • May 1, 2017, at 12:23 PM PDT
    • Like
  27. David Limbaugh Contributor

    A-Squared (View Comment):
    I understand. My question was poorly stated, but there are at least two underlying questions. 1) Do people of faith accept that conventional wisdom as the correct timeline for the writing of the Gospels? 2)In the book, is David arguing against that conventional wisdom?

    I am not saying the Gospels were written within years of Jesus’ death. I did say that many creeds were accepted and circulated within years of his death and long before Gospels were written. As I state in the book I believe the synoptics were written between 50 and 70 AD and John probably later. I am not trying to break new ground on this point. It’s a fairly mainstream view, though people differ considerably. But the Gospel writers were contemporaries of Jesus in the sense that they lived when He did. They were either direct eyewitnesses or close associates of eyewitnesses, which means they were mostly contemporaries — which does NOT mean they wrote while He was living, which they did not.

    I should add — Jesus died in his early thirties. If the Gospels were written 20 to 30 to 40 or even 60 years later in the case of John, the writers would have been in their 50s but not much older than 90 (John).

    • #27
    • May 1, 2017, at 12:45 PM PDT
    • 4 likes
  28. A-Squared Coolidge

    David Limbaugh (View Comment):
    I am not saying the Gospels were written within years of Jesus’ death. I did say that many creeds were accepted and circulated within years of his death and long before Gospels were written. As I state in the book I believe the synoptics were written between 50 and 70 AD and John probably later. I am not trying to break new ground on this point. It’s a fairly mainstream view, though people differ considerably. But the Gospel writers were contemporaries of Jesus in the sense that they lived when He did. They were either direct eyewitnesses or close associates of eyewitnesses, which means they were mostly contemporaries — which does NOT mean they wrote while He was living, which they did not.

    Thanks for the clarification (it’s always great when a podcaster or podcast guests interacts directly with members on the site). I was running on the treadmill yesterday when I listened to the podcast, so I may have misheard or misremembered (and I have not read the book).

    I only

    • #28
    • May 1, 2017, at 12:53 PM PDT
    • 1 like
  29. David Limbaugh Contributor

    A-Squared (View Comment):
    Thanks for the clarification (it’s always great when a podcaster or podcast guests interacts directly with members on the site). I was running on the treadmill yesterday when I listened to the podcast, so I may have misheard or misremembered (and I have not read the book).

    Yes, and I may very well have misspoken. So I hope I have clarified here. The book, BTW, isn’t primarily an apologetic work, though I do include apologetic information in the first part of the book. The thrust of the book is a consolidated account of the four Gospels in roughly chronological order, with commentary — mine and many great thinkers through history. It is not, contrary to certain assertions made hereunder, merely something that is presented to first year seminary students, though I would not apologize if it were. How great if we could get that kind of information into the hands of lay readers. Also contrary to what was implied in one post hereunder, it does not purport to be anything other than what it is.

    • #29
    • May 1, 2017, at 12:59 PM PDT
    • 2 likes
  30. A-Squared Coolidge

    David Limbaugh (View Comment):
    The thrust of the book is a consolidated account of the four Gospels in roughly chronological order, with commentary — mine and many great thinkers through history. It is not, contrary to certain assertions made hereunder, merely something that is presented to first year seminary students, though I would not apologize if it were. How great if we could get that kind of information into the hands of lay readers.

    Yes, this is what appeals to me about your project. It’s been many years since I’ve read the Gospels, but I’m always intrigued by the different intended audiences for the Canonical Gospels (which you summarized on the podcast) and how, for example, what we think of as the Christmas Story is actually a compilation of the slightly different versions.

    I will definitely put your book on my reading list.

    • #30
    • May 1, 2017, at 1:16 PM PDT
    • 2 likes
  1. 1
  2. 2