 I want to take one little segment of Tulsi talking about foreign policy and just comment on it because I think it's wacky. This is no hero of a foreign policy, certainly not my kind of foreign policy. So here we go. Tulsi Gabbard, in an interview with John Stossel, I think on Reason TV. You met with the dictator with Assad. Yes. And the liberal media gave you grief for that. I would think that they would say we should talk to everybody. Now Stossel believes that. And I'll talk a little bit in a minute about why that is so wrong. Talk than wage war. I agree. You would think that's what they would say. Chris Cuomo, you need to acknowledge that Assad is a murderous despot. Are you surprised? And then what? I think this is- I mean, Alkes Cuomo said you got to acknowledge that he's a murderous despot. Well you can acknowledge that and then decide all kinds of things, but that's reality. That's truth. That's just what it is. So did you see the way she looked when, you know, and then what? And then you should think about how do we deal with murderous despots? And it's talking to murderous despots is the best policy. And when in all of human history is talking and negotiating and compromising with murderous despots ever helped us, ever been a good idea, ever benefited the human race, ever benefited America, which you claim to represent. So she rolled her eyes at he's a murderous despot. That's just a fact of reality. She's a murderous, barbaric despot, totalitarian, and you represent a country that represents freedom. You go speak to him for what? What is there to be gained by the good negotiating with evil? And we're talking about not just the good, the good that has within it the mightiest military force in all of human history, the biggest economy in the world. One of the wealthiest people. What is the point of talking to a despot? Now this is the criticism I threw at Donald Trump. Right at Tulsi, she's the same. Pure pragmatism, no principle, no idea of what actually drives the world, the evil that exists out there in the world. You do not, cannot, should not ever negotiate with evil. Let's keep going. The problem is, you know, we look back to examples like Roosevelt meeting with Stalin. Was that a good idea? Did the U.S. support of Stalin during World War II? Was that a good idea? I don't think so. I don't think so. Wouldn't it be better for the Russians and the Germans to fight it out? Who did we benefit by supporting Stalin? Who gained by us supporting Stalin? Eastern Europeans who were then enslaved under communism for 70 years? The Russians who were enslaved under Stalin's rule? Who did we benefit by talking to Stalin during World War II? Wouldn't, maybe, Germany had been even more depleted if they'd gone further into Russia? If they'd gone further fighting rather than allowing the Russians to defeat the Germans? Why not stay out of that war and let the Germans and the Russians fight it out? You don't help your enemy. The enemy of your enemy is not your friend. The enemy of your enemy is not your friend. Here's another example. Another murderous leader. You look at JFK. Oh, by the way, she admitted he was murderous. A meeting with Khrushchev. Was that a good thing? It's a meeting with Mao there. Was that a good thing? Nixon meeting with Mao, a murderous leader who was at the blood of 40 to 60 million people in his hands? Or Khrushchev? Probably sustained communism in the Soviet Union for decades, the fact that we had detente with the Soviet Union. I mean, I mean, it was horrified by the idea that an American leader would meet with a Soviet leader. And she thought it was horrific that Nixon went to China. Examples throughout our country's history of Reagan meeting with Gorbachev. Well, big difference. Gorbachev was winding down the Soviet Union. Gorbachev was winding down the totalitarian nature of that regime. But granted, I'm not sure Reagan had a meet with Gorbachev. To recognize that in the interest of peace and security, you have to be willing to meet with leaders of other countries, whether they be. Because they'll all keep their word. Because deals cut with barbaric leaders like that are always going to be followed. Because, I mean, she doesn't use the example of Chamberlain in Hitler. And a million other examples throughout history. Peace agreements with Yasser Arafat, deals with the Iranians. She loves Iranians, by the way. She thinks we should reduce all of our crippling economic sanctions on them and allow them and negotiate. Which, again, I think she's very much like Donald Trump in this attitude. He's friends, dictators, or otherwise recognizing what you just said, that the only alternative to that is war. Is it always the only alternative is a war? What about just ignoring them? Like Syria. What I said at the time was, Syria is none of our business. There's no American interest involved. If ISIS is a threat to the United States and destroy ISIS, you don't have to get involved in a Syrian war. You don't have to send American troops. Just ignore them. War is not, it's not like the only two alternatives. And this is true in North Korea as well. The only two alternative is war or negotiate with barbarians. Again, more altruism, more moral relativism. More there's no objective standard for goodness. More false dichotomies, false alternatives. Wait a second, ignore, I've talked about Hong Kong. I don't say ignore Hong Kong. I don't think you send troops to Hong Kong. But you don't ignore Hong Kong. You give moral courage to those in Hong Kong fighting for freedom. But in Hong Kong, they're fighting for freedom. What were they fighting for in Syria? Nothing. One group of barbarians fighting another group of barbarians. Hong Kong is completely different. But again, even in Hong Kong, you don't send troops. And yeah, I am heartless. I don't believe in sacrificing the lives of American kids, American soldiers, for the sake of other people's freedom. I wouldn't have intervened in World War II in order to save Jews from the Holocaust. I would have only intervened in World War II if it was deemed necessary for the security of the United States of America. You don't intervene in Syria unless the lives or property of Americans is at stake. The American government is there to protect the rights of Americans, not to be the policemen of the world, not to bring security to the world, not to bring freedom to the world. In Hong Kong, a moral support, assertive statement, and telling China there will be consequences to them invading Hong Kong or killing people in Hong Kong. Consequences that can be boycotts and others that do not necessarily involve, that do not involve military force. But it's not always a war. That's not always the alternative. That's ridiculous. Now, sometimes you have to go to war. Sometimes you need to bomb people into the dark ages. And I'm all for that. I don't believe in building democracies. I don't believe in keeping troops on the ground forever. But again, libertarians and Tulsi and Donald Trump are presenting the alternative as, we talk to dictators or we go to war. No, I mean, North Korea, you can ignore. We've already completely barricaded them. You could increase the economic sanctions. You could increase all kinds of other sanctions. You can encourage the people to rebel. You can support any kind of insurgency within the country. You can declare that. And if they threaten the United States militarily, you can crush them and turn them into dust. Nobody fights to win anymore. But that's a great tragedy. That's a great tragedy. All right. Maybe a little bit more here. And then I've got some super chat questions. Don't ask anymore. What's going on with your party? Democrats used to be the anti-war party. Unfortunately, this is something that crosses both parties. Yeah, the problem with this is, and I'm going to stop here because I think this becomes non-essential because it becomes politics. The issue is not pro-war, anti-war. The issue is, why do we go to war? When do we go to war? For what do we go to war? Do we go to war to defend American interests? What are American interests? How do you define American interests? Those are the issues that foreign policy has to deal with and those are the issues nobody, nobody, nobody, nobody is talking about. And this is why, I mean, if you really want a deep understanding of this, I recommend you read Winning the Unwinnable War. That was edited by Lon Giorno. And I have three essays in that book. And just read it, Lon Giorno. Read his books, read his articles, follow him online. He has the right conception of foreign policy, which none of these other people do. And nobody in the libertarian world has. All right. What we need today, what I call the new intellectual, would be any man or woman who is willing to think. Meaning, any man or woman who knows that man's life must be guided by reason, by the intellect, not by feelings, wishes, wins, or mystic revelations. Any man or woman who values his life and who does not want to give in to today's cult of the stare, cynicism, and impotence and does not intend to give up the world to the dark ages and to the role of the collectivist broads. Using the super chat, and I noticed yesterday when I appealed for support for the show, many of you stepped forward and actually supported the show for the first time. So I'll do it again. Maybe we'll get some more today. If you like what you're hearing, if you appreciate what I'm doing, then I appreciate your support. Those of you who don't yet support the show, please take this opportunity, go to youronbrookshow.com slash support or go to subscribestar.com, your own book show and make a kind of a monthly contribution to keep this going. I'm not sure when the next...