HH: That music means it’s the last radio hour of the week, and that means it’s time for the Hillsdale Dialogue. Each week at this time, I am joined by Dr. Larry Arnn, president of Hillsdale College, or one of his able colleagues. Dr. Matt Spalding has been with us the last three weeks, but Dr. Arnn is back from his extended sail, his voyage around the Baltic, probably with Hillsdale College supporters. All things Hillsdale available at www.hillsdale.edu. All of these conversations dating back to 2013, I believe, available at www.hughforhillsdale.com. Dr. Arnn, welcome home. You are home, I assume. Are you in Michigan or inside the Beltway?
LA: I’m in Michigan, and I think it’s right, my first time back on Hugh Hewitt, to confess that I have been colluding with the Russians.
HH: (laughing) Yes, you have. You’ve been spending money there, haven’t you?
LA: I have been. I do discover last time I was there, everybody loved Putin. This time, and you know, what does everybody mean? It means when you’re in Russia, you maybe talk to 15 or 20 Russians. This time, nobody liked Putin.
LA: Yeah, and there’s a very touching thing by a tour guide lady who was an architecture professor retired, very talented woman. And she said yeah…
HH: Careful. She’s going to get picked up if they can figure out who she is.
LA: And notice I didn’t say her name.
LA: And she said yeah, I’m afraid we’re going to, you know, we’re going to go back to all of that. And the economy is better now, but all of that. If you’re old enough to remember that era, you know how terrible that is.
HH: Yeah, knocks on the door at night.
HH: Journalists are already being killed. The Siloviki, his inner circle, is already Stalinesque in its intrigues, and there’s a Beria, and there’s an enforcer, and there’s a Khrushchev, there’s a whole central committee that’s forming around him that is very eerily reminiscent of the bad old days.
LA: Isn’t it, though? Yeah, and I hope not. You know, and I, Putin is, he’s a nationalist for Russia, and there’s nothing wrong with that. And if they don’t lose their freedoms, then I can put up with him.
HH: Yeah, if you put, a corrupt autocrat is not a totalitarian.
LA: That’s right.
HH: There’s a difference.
LA: You know, and you know, we’ve got so many problems. We spent a lot of time on the cruise talking about this, and it was fun. Christopher Caldwell was with us. He knows a lot about this.
HH: Oh, you bet.
LA: …about Europe. And you know, we’ve got a lot of problems in the world, and the strategy of trying not to have him make more enemies unless you have to is a really good idea. And gosh, these North Koreans going nuts, and the Chinese apparently helping them, and the Chinese being what they are, you know, growing power and full of their might and confidence and stuff, Russia is not like that. Russia has still got demographic problems, and Russia still is just chiefly an oil state. And that doesn’t look like nearly as good a thing to be as it used to be. So when you’re picking and choosing who’s going to be your enemies, we’ve got such a wide field, we should be careful not to pick them all.
HH: Now I do want to talk about Russia since you brought it up. Sergei Lavrov this morning on a different network, Good Morning America, or Today Show, actually, it was on NBC, told Keir Simmons that Putin and Trump may have had more meetings at the G-20 Summit. All that is designed to do is to feed the frenzy. And the Russians, if chaos is what you want to cover all of your nefarious deeds in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine, and your ties to organized crime and your assassination of journalists, all you have to do is keep feeding the American media tidbits on which they will then, like a pack of dogs, tear up for all day. And they are playing a KGB game, a GRU-FSB game with our media. And our media doesn’t seem to be aware of that, Larry Arnn.
LA: Well, they might be aware of it. It depends on whether their purposes are partisan or not. I mean, it, you know, there’s some, you know, this is a fearful time, right? And the way that the Congress is behaving in general, both sides of the aisle, and the way the media is behaving, I mean, it’s just, it’s just an all-out death war against the Trump administration by the media and the left. And I’ve never seen anything like it. And you know, so Donald Trump was in the same place as Vladimir Putin, and they had a bunch of meetings. That’s what they were there for.
LA: And some of those meetings, you know, the first outrage extra meeting that had not been announced, there were 40 people in the room, you know? Some of them ordinary people, you know, not secret people, not to advisors. And so they get together and talk. If you want, you should read the story of Winston Churchill’s visits to Moscow and other meetings with Jo Stalin. They wandered around the halls at night and run into each other and stay up drinking until 2 or 3 in the morning. And Lord knows what they said, except of course there’s a record of what they said. You can read it if you want to.
HH: Well, there’s a difference if you don’t have any historical knowledge and if you do, and there’s a difference if you have a partisan agenda. I believe Putin is an evil guy, but that you have to deal with evil guys when you’re the president of the United States. And we have been doing so, Nixon with Mao, FDR with Stalin, President Obama with any number of, heck, Nancy Pelosi sat down with Bashar al-Assad as the greatest mass murderer going around the country now and thought he was a reformer, as did Hillary Clinton. It just is the nature of the world that you’ve got to do this. Let me ask you, though, about the Constitutional issue. And I have been saying for a long time that Bob Mueller is a man of great integrity, and I trust his integrity and his team, but that I am troubled by a second attorney general, and that’s what he is. He’s got a second Department of Justice, and they’re doing it. Now I don’t want the President to fire him, but I do want people to understand this is not Constitutional government to have a second attorney general. It’s very bad, and the President gave vent to that yesterday by saying he wouldn’t have appointed our friend, Jeff Sessions, had he known he was going to be recused. And I believe, by the way, that that’s a fair thing for the President to say, because it’s true.
LA: Very much. Very much. And yeah, I mean, first of all, I wasn’t as happy about the special prosecutor as you were back in the day, so I’m not ready to count coup over you, yet.
LA: But it’s, it, these things have a way of getting out of hand. Mueller is apparently tight with James Comey. James Comey has an inflated understanding of his importance, and above all, of the independence, a word he likes, of his position, FBI director, whereas if really, the cops are independent of the political authorities, then you have a police state. That’s what we’re talking about in Russia. So I fear all of that. I do think that if you’re going to be appointed a cabinet post, you need to tell them everything. And they have a right to know everything. People should go, to understand how you comport yourself around stuff like that, go read the very great book, but also there are various accounts of it on the internet, of something called Rumsfeld’s Rules, which is something Don Rumsfeld, who’s been one of the greatest of our modern public servants, and should have been president of the United States, almost was, almost picked by Reagan to be his vice president, and he wrote out rules about how you do those jobs, right? And all of rules that emanate from the place, that one person is election, and therefore is the representative of the sovereignty of the people of the United States. And you work for him. And even when you’re interviewing with the people, his interest, that is to say the interest in a success in his administration, is much more important than you getting a job. And I’ll tell you, you know, I’m not criticizing anybody in particular here, but I was interviewed for one of those jobs of late. And you know, I didn’t want the job very much, and I told them that. But I gave them a long list of reasons why it would be a foolish thing to appoint me just so they knew. And I didn’t make up any ones that I know that I think would cause them trouble of they appointed me. And then they said well, if we ask you, will you do it, and I said sure. It’s like conscription, right?
HH: (laughing) Yes, it is.
LA: (laughing) You know, I said yeah, but you know, full disclosure, right? I’m a useless dog, and I probably wouldn’t be any good.
HH: And I bite, yeah.
LA: Or whatever else I said. And that, so a lot of this, you know, is, stems from that thing, because the point is what, now the worst thing, right, and see from reading the papers while I’m gone, the worst thing is there was a meeting with Donald Trump, Jr. where the Russians offered some dirt on Hillary Clinton. Now, and there’s a poll this morning that says that people don’t like that. 60% of the people don’t like that. I don’t trust those polls. I don’t trust any polls right now, because if you can’t trust the front page, how can you trust the poll inspired by the media? But anyway, so let’s say that he gave them, he gave him some dirt on Hillary Clinton. Well, either it’s true or it’s not true. And if it’s true, maybe it ought to be known.
LA: And the source of it doesn’t affect the validity of it. And I don’t think there’s any evidence that anything was given to them that they used. But gosh, if you’re running for president against Hillary Clinton, and you read the stories about the fundraising of the Clinton Foundation, about half a million dollars speaking fees and million dollar speaking fees, you know, that’s a lot of money. And then you read those stories, and you think some foreign governments might know some stuff. And so they’re running, and she’s accusing him of every dirty deed. So if you’re just gathering facts, it looks to me like, you can gather them.
HH: And when we come back from break, we’re going to continue to talk about that and how one ought to go about gathering them. But I’ll pose the question to Dr. Arnn whether President Trump ought to be done with Sessions, Rosenstein and Mueller in a swoop and reset the Department of Justice. Stay tuned.
— – – – – –
HH: Dr. Arnn, I read to you from Bloomberg this morning. “FBI investigators and others are looking at Russian purchases of apartments in Trump buildings, Trump’s involvement in a controversial SoHo development in New York with Russian associates, a 2013 Miss Universe pageant in Moscow, and Trump’s sale of a Florida mansion to a Russian oligarch in 2008.” Now that could be untrue. That’s an unnamed source. It could be an FBI grudge-carrying Comey supporter. It could be anything. But the President’s exercised about it, because he believes this was supposed to be an investigation of Russian collusion, and there isn’t any. And he is tempted, I think, to fire Robert Mueller, and with him, the Attorney General and the deputy Attorney General and bring in someone like Mike Luttig and reset the Department of Justice. I asked Jake Sherman of Politico earlier today what would be the consequence were he to do something like that, and Jake said, quite bluntly, none. There wouldn’t be any. There’d be quite the explosion in the Beltway-Manhattan media, but “There probably isn’t any.” Jake Sherman, no conservative he, on the consequence of firing Mueller, Sessions and a reset. What do you think?
LA: Well, I think, so first of all, let me tell you what a smoking gun would be that Mueller might legitimately find. I said before the break that if some Russian offered some dirt on Hillary Clinton and Trump received it and decided it was true or decided it was not true, well, he’s just done opposition research. If Trump promised them something that wouldn’t be in the interest of the United States on event of being elected, that would be very improper. And so [Mueller] might find something like that. I don’t know how he would, and I would be astonished if any such thing existed, but, and there’s no evidence of that right now which I know, but that’s something for him to look for under the terms of his original appointment, whereas if he’s going to go investigate the entire life of Donald Trump and all of his associates, what you said before is that we’ve got a new Justice Department working, and it’s not working for the President. And think of the danger of the situation in which we are right now. The government is deeply divided. A House and a Senate is controlled by a party that is pledged to overturn and repeal and replace Obamacare, so far, cannot pass a bill about that. Every kind of charge is going on everywhere, and yet in the meantime, the government’s supposed to function. The idea is that between elections, the president is supposed to be very strong. I mean, the first time Trump met with some Russians and told them something that they had learned, that he had learned through intelligence, that was supposed to be like a breach of the classification system. But he’s the president of the United States, and his job is to make friends or harm enemies of the United States, and he’s got to have latitude to do that. So the danger is the whole thing is going to cease to function. And that’s why all this talk about this expression that comes from Turkey of the deep state, and it looks like the law enforcement and intelligence agencies are the source of partisanship in these controversies between the political parties. So it’s dangerous. And you know, in the end, the remedy is this. Let’s say they find that Trump has done something improper. If they get something really big, then you know, the House could impeach him, and the Senate could try him. But that’s not going to happen, right? So the election is coming soon, and that’s the remedy. And so I just, it’s just amazing to me. I was in Washington just before I went on this cruise, and what I’m afraid is the thing is seizing up, and there needs to break the logjam. And they need to, you know, first of all, what the Republicans should do is get on with their business. And I don’t know if Trump should fire this guy, Mueller, but I do think he’s going beyond his brief. And if he does fire him, then I think they should try to get on with their business after that.
HH: That would require four Republican senators, two of them, Rand Paul and Mike Lee, conservatives, to change their mind and start passing Obamacare repeal and replace. I’ll talk with Dr. Larry Arnn about that after the break. Stay tuned, America.
— – – – – –
HH: Dr. Arnn, it is the six month mark. Six months ago, President Trump was sworn into office. Mark Knoller of CBS News gave us some cliff notes to review those six months. President Trump has signed 42 bills into law. He has made remarks and speeches on 258 occasions. He signed 30 executive orders. He has held 13 news conferences, only one of which was solo. He has visited 16 of these United States, most often Florida, eight trips there. We do not include D.C., Maryland and Virginia in that count. He’s made three trips abroad. He’s visited eight countries, only been to Camp David once. He’s had 33 rounds of golf, or at least been to golf clubs 33 times. He’s met with 54 different foreign leaders, some of them more than once. He’s been on Air Force One 60 times, Marine One 59 times. He’s granted 48 media interviews, most of those going to the Fox News Channel, 13. The unemployment rate when he took office was 4.8%. It is 4.4% today. The national debt has actually gone down. It was $19.947 trillion when he took office. It is $19.844 trillion today. And the Dow Jones Industrials was at 19,827 when he took the oath. It is at 21,640 today. What do you make of his six months?
LA: (laughing) He’s a very active guy, isn’t he?
HH: Yes, he is.
LA: He, I came to believe during the course of the campaign, and you know, anybody who’s studied American politics as long as I have and who holds by the Constitution as long as I have, and says that he was a Trump supporter from the first day, has just got to be a liar. And I was not that. But I came around to that, and pretty early, and I began to believe that he meant what he said, that I found evidence that he’d been saying it for a long time, you know, back to 1990 is the earliest I found. And so I’m not surprised that he wishes to rein in the regulatory state. I even think he has some idea that it’s an alternative kind of government to the Constitutional kind. And he’s attacking that all the time. And so I like that about him very much. And you know, people don’t like his tweets, and I don’t know whether I like them or not. I don’t tweet myself. But I read about them in the paper. And I think given the way he’s covered, having direct contact in brief format with the American people, I don’t know why he’d give that up, even if it doesn’t work.
HH: Oh, he ain’t giving it up, and I know the ups and I know the downs of the six months. We’re going to be treated to a woe is me, and they’re all going to diminish and talk about Gorsuch, Gorsuch, Gorsuch being repetitive, but of course, Gorsuch, Gorsuch, Gorsuch is going to matter for 30-plus years. He’s only appointed and confirmed two members of the 22 open to him on the Circuits Courts of Appeals. My biggest beef is their pace on the Circuit judges. There are 130 other vacancies he hasn’t moved on. And the Department of State is a mess, and we have this Russia thing. But generally, the Congressional Review Act laws are very significant. The big fail, the big fail, is health care. While you were out of the country, four Republicans, two from the left, two from the right, Susan Collins and Dean Heller combined with Rand Paul and Mike Lee, and you can add in Jerry Moran of Kansas, to kill off the Mitch McConnell stitched together repeal and replacement. And you know, I like Mike Lee quite a lot, though I’m very angry with him on this vote. I’m, the only one of three people I’ve ever held a fundraiser for – Jason Chaffetz and Doug Ducey being the other two. But he made the good the enemy of the perfect and deserted his friend, Ted Cruz, and thus he now owns Obamacare. Do you think we can resurrect something out of the ashes of this, Larry Arnn?
LA: Well, we have to. I mean, Mike Lee is a friend of mine, and I can tell you of what I regard, personal knowledge that you won’t get anywhere with him by beating him up. He’s a tough guy, and he’s a very principled man, and he’s doing what he thinks is right. The way I think about this situation is different than he. I think, and more like you, I guess, I think this. I think since the birth of the regulatory state, which really happened in large, physical ways in the 60s and 70s, there’s not been such a chance to attack it as the one we have right now.
LA: Reagan never had, and so that means in the whole history of America, this thing that constitutes, in my opinion, a Constitutional crisis, has never, we’ve never had a president leading a party that controls the Congress that means to attack that thing and reduce it to reasonable size and to the right method of operations. Laws should be made in the Congress, right? So this is a unique opportunity. And nobody active in politics today has any experience with this kind of opportunity, because there is no experience. And that means that things should shift a little bit. Now, there’s a chance to do stuff. And the question that arise when there’s a chance to do stuff are different than the questions that arise when you’re in the opposition. Now, you have to think about that calculus you alluded to, Hugh, between the good and the best. And you should get as much of the good as you can, but, and you should get as much of the best as you can, but you’ll only end up with the good, or maybe not even very good, but better, and then getting up and fight again tomorrow. And I’ll say another thing. This is not over, yet. And it’s not unlikely that you know, Ted Cruz did some very helpful things last week.
HH: Yes, he did.
LA: And I was so proud of him.
HH: Yes, he did.
LA: And gosh, he’s a brilliant guy. And I bet, you know, I voted for him. You know, I’ve become known as a Trump guy, but I voted for him in Michigan in the primary, and I’m proud that I did it, right? And he did something creative and good. And it may be that what Mike Lee is doing is he’s negotiating with those moderates, you know, Portman and Murkowski and those people, because he asked the obvious question why should I be the one to surrender? Why don’t they surrender? And the judgment will come at the end, right, because if this fails, they all bear a heavy responsibility. I encourage people to read the column this morning in the Wall Street Journal of the great Kimberly Strassel, who writes about, you know, there’s, the point is, you know, I was in Washington before I went abroad, and somebody said are you for this bill, whatever form it was in, and I said yeah, I am. And they said but what about this and what about that? And I said yeah, okay, I didn’t know about those things. And they said you didn’t know? And I said no. And they said have you read the bill, and I said no. And they said, you know, I’m not in the Senate or the House. And they said how do you know you’re for it? And I said everybody tells me that it’s better than Obamacare. Is it? You know, I was talking to a bunch of Congressmen who were voting against it. I said is it better than Obamacare? And they said yes.
LA: And I said significantly? And they said yes.
LA: And I said I’m for it.
HH: And I go back, I’ve been missing you a lot, because you’re pretty good at this. Occasionally when I get you on the right day, you’re coherent. And occasionally when you’re coherent, you say first thing you do is pass a bill.
LA: Yeah, that’s it. (laughing)
HH: (laughing) First thing you do is you’ve got to pass a bill. And so the only thing that matters to me is that they get something to the President to begin the process of unraveling this monster, because as of today, it is now Obama, Collins, Lee, Paul, Moran Care. As of today, we own this monster.
LA: Yeah, that’s right.
HH: And unless you hack away, and people say it’s like a hydra. If you strike it, it will grow seven heads. Well, I’d like to try striking it first. (laughing)
HH: I would actually like to see what we could do.
LA: So you know with some of the people in the House and the Senate, the way you would negotiate with them is congratulations, this is your lucky day, you need to vote for us, but we are going to pave the streets of your district in gold. And that would be, by the way, an excellent economic bargain if you could reduce greatly Obamacare. Some of them will respond to that. Mike Lee’s not like that. Mike Lee’s a heck of a guy, you know, and so he’s, if what he’s doing is negotiating with Portman and Murkowski and such, then God bless him. But this, the judgment will come at the end. If we fail, suffer loss of the Congress over that, that’s a serious thing. And my own…
LA: And this is a prudential thing, right? So first of all…
LA: What does that mean? That means that in the context that we live in, we’re all making judgments, right? And they all have to take account of circumstances. Let’s say that it could play out this way. And Mike will be thinking about things like this, I’ll bet you. Let’s say it plays out that Obamacare gets worse and worse, and the pressure grows and grows, and we get a chance to pass something yet better next year, right? Well, he might be playing for that. I don’t know. But my own view is this is the first chance, I think, in human history to start back in the other direction. And we should start, and then we should try to build on that. So this bill would not be the end. It would be the precursor to many more things like that.
HH: Including tax reform. Look, I am not mad at Mike Lee. It wouldn’t matter if I was. As I think you’ve pointed out…
HH: He is indifferent to emotion on this regard, and I do not doubt that he took what in his view was a principled measure. What I am pointing out, what the audience has to understand, is Mike Lee did this. It’s called accountability. And Ted Cruz authored the amendment which would have reintroduced federalism into health care. It was part of the bill. I do not, I really rue that you were out of the country, because I don’t know that Mike Lee could call you and talk to you about this. But it was not prudential. And the fact that they will fail to open debate on the complete repeal is not a fig leaf, because we always knew that they wouldn’t pass that. And so it is about prudence, Dr. Arnn, in the final analysis. What can we get done? And if they don’t pass this, their tax reform is much more limited, if it at all can survive. And if they don’t pass that, then the Russia investigation grows, because the answer to the Russia investigation is achievement, isn’t it?
LA: Yeah. So you know, a sober view, if you step back from these charges, you know, go back to Russia for a minute. Did Donald Trump make a deal with the Russians to get dirt on Hillary Clinton and then favor them? Well, we know that’s not true, unless he’s a deal breaker, because he has not been favoring them, right? Donald Trump is building up the military of the United States. And if you’re a foreign despot, that’s not a good thing, right? If you’re China, and you’re increasing your trade with North Korea while North Korea is spectacularly building the ability to strike the United States with nuclear weapons, if you’re doing that, then the thing you don’t want us to do is to be building up our military so we can counter that. And Trump, you know, I’ve got a feeling that the result of North Korea is going to be Trump is going to start talking to Japan and Taiwan in different terms than he has in the past. And all that stuff is dangerous, and all that stuff is going on. And the president of the United States deserves our support while he deals with it, especially if he shows so many signs of dealing with it vigorously. And that’s the same thing about this vast, expensive, intrusive, dangerous administrative state. Every step that can be taken back toward Constitutional government should be taken, proclaimed a victory, and then another one taken after that.
HH: Another one. Another one. We’ll be right back to talk about another step you should take this weekend to see the movie Dunkirk with Dr. Larry Arnn. No better person to talk about Dunkirk with than him.
—- – – – – –
HH: Dr. Arnn, if I can set aside the news of the day, I want to ask you. There is a movie that debuts this weekend, Dunkirk. My film critic, Sonny Bunch of the Washington Free Beacon, exclaimed that it’s wonderful. Everyone has. It’s riveting. It’s an amazing, and if you get the lens right, any story of courage is going to be remarkable, and this is a great story of courage. What do you hope to see in Dunkirk, and what was Churchill doing, you who was part of his official biography team under Sir Martin Gilbert? What was he doing during Dunkirk?
LA: He was, he didn’t bite his nails, but he was biting his nails. He, you know, first of all, it’s a wonderful for so many reasons, and I should mention that my wife’s father came off Dunkirk Beach with the Coldstream Guards. He was in an artillery regiment attached to them on the last day.
LA: So he spent the whole eight days on Dunkirk Beach, and had tremendous stories about the heroism of other people, especially in the Coldstream Guards. He never talked about himself. But what, you know, the story is so great for so many reasons, but one of them is that it was a free people rising up, right? They didn’t know. They thought, Churchill later said on a really wonderful speech about the thing, there were about 400,000 British and French soldiers gathered on that beach, and they had been cut off up in Belgium by the Sickle Cut led by Guderian and Rommel. And the French, most of the French army, and it was so confused, orders didn’t matter. The French army mostly started gravitating toward Paris, and they separated. And the British army turned for the sea. And they ended up down there at Dunkirk, and there’s a heroic defense up to the north at Calais, where they lost almost every soldier, including the very brave Major Nicholson, fought to the death, to give them time to get those guys off. And they getting them off, a great, large part of that was accomplished by people hearing on the radio there was a need, and just setting off toward the war across the English Channel in their boats.
HH: And not big boats. Small boats.
LA: Every kind, every, no, whatever was the biggest boat you could lay your hands on, and so just make a picture of a fishing harbor, right? You know, you’ve been to many of them on the coast anywhere, right? And think what kind of boats are sitting around there, not military boats, right? Wherever they were, they just got in and they all went. And they got over there, and they were under fire, a lot of them were sunk or killed or both, and they brought almost all of the 400,000 back, and none of their heavy weapons.
HH: Not one.
HH: Because they can’t get it off.
LA: There was just no, you know, and we learn about, and when we later learn about D-Day and about the invasion of France, that the limiting factor is roads and ports. And the reason they landed at Normandy is because the Germans knew that, and the ports were so heavily defended that you couldn’t, you know, you couldn’t hope to land there. And that meant they had to try to build their own ports. Well, they show up on Dunkirk Beach, and it’s a really long, it’s more than a mile long, huge, very nice beach, but it’s just a beach. And so there’s no place for a heavy ship to get close enough so you can roll an artillery piece onto it or a tank.
HH: And I believe you told me that Churchill said you don’t win wars by retreating, but that it was a miracle nonetheless.
LA: Yeah, wars are not won by evacuations. And he, you know, because it was, there was rejoicing, right? It was, first of all, what do you want? You want them to come home, right? And this is not the first time a British army has gone over to France to face the Germans. And the last time, and it’s in memory, right, because the First World War ended in 1918, and now here it is 1940, 22 years later, lots and lots of people alive who went through that first thing, and they have nothing but dread. And then something entirely different happens, and that is, so you know, the British Expeditionary Force went across to the relief of France and Belgium in early and mid-September of 1939. And then nothing happened in the West until it turns out the particular day is the 10th of May, 1940. And that is also the day Winston Churchill kissed hands with the King and became prime minister of the country.
HH: Will you be going to see this movie, Dr. Arnn?
LA: I’m going this weekend, yeah. And I’m very, I’m excited about it. I’ve read something about it that makes me fear that it’s got a flaw, but I won’t tell you that now. You should go see it, because I hear it’s very dramatic. And I will tell you, I’m in movie mode right now, because there’s a Churchill movie coming out in November starring Gary Oldman, and I think it’s going to be fantastic. And I visited the set at Christmas, so I think we may get two shots of heroism this year.
HH: And we need more than two. They get one shot a week on the Hugh Hewitt Show, speaking truth to truth all the time. Dr. Larry Arnn is back, America. The Hillsdale Hour is safe. Don’t go anywhere. Stay tuned to the Hugh Hewitt Show.
End of interview.