Speaker 1: Welcome to today's podcast sponsored by Hillsdale College, All Things
Speaker 1: Hillsdale at Hillsdale dot ed or I encourage you to
Speaker 1: take advantage of the many free online courses there, and
Speaker 1: of course I'll listen to the Hillsdale Dialogue all of
Speaker 1: them at Hugh for Hillsdale dot com or just Google, Apple,
Speaker 1: iTunes and Hillsdale Morning. Glauria and Indian Grace. Welcome to
Speaker 1: the Big Weekend Pod America. I'm Hugh HEWITTT. Good pod today,
Speaker 1: great pod, if I may say so myself, Prompted in
Speaker 1: part by Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney's Bankers Address to
Speaker 1: the Bankers at Davos. I got a standing ovation, got
Speaker 1: a big standing ovation at Davos, Mark Karney did. I
Speaker 1: don't know what's happened in Canada, all right, Stephen Harper
Speaker 1: was a great prime minister, Brian mulroney, great partner with
Speaker 1: Ronald Reagan and facing down the Soviet Union. They had
Speaker 1: the clown Trudeau for a long time. Now they've turned
Speaker 1: to mister Davos himself, Mark Carney. I want you to
Speaker 1: make time to listen to it, so I'm going to
Speaker 1: have Harley had the fifteen minute speech not the Q
Speaker 1: and A. It's only fifteen minutes. Mark Carney, the fifteen
Speaker 1: minute speech. I talk about it with my guests today,
Speaker 1: John Ellis, Well, I'll lead off with Matt Contnetty, than
Speaker 1: Ben Dominic, then Eli Lake, then John Ellis. But listening
Speaker 1: to Mark Carney thing, it's quite quietly but quite definitely
Speaker 1: anti American turn trough. It's also very cowardly because Carney
Speaker 1: avoids naming President Trump for the United States. You got
Speaker 1: that big standing o though at the Banker's Annual PEP
Speaker 1: rally and Davos. Of course he would. But as you listen,
Speaker 1: keep in mind some facts. First, CARNEI purports to speak
Speaker 1: for the so called Middle Powers. That's a variant I
Speaker 1: guess of the non aligned nations of the Cold War,
Speaker 1: which is odd since Canada depends almost entirely on America
Speaker 1: for its national defense and for the freedom of the seas.
Speaker 1: That allows it to sell its major asset, which is oil. Now,
Speaker 1: I like Canada. My in laws are Canadian, my daughter
Speaker 1: in law is Canadian. Love Canadians love maple syrup. There's
Speaker 1: even a hockey joke in the introduction of Carney. Who
Speaker 1: who doesn't like Canadian Adam is Canadian man who's producing
Speaker 1: this second. Canada has a population of forty two million
Speaker 1: people and a GDP of two point four trillion, but
Speaker 1: it doesn't even spend two percent of that GDP on defense.
Speaker 1: It promises that it's going to get to two percent
Speaker 1: two percent by twenty thirty. Right, it just isn't really
Speaker 1: a middle power, if there's any kind of a definition
Speaker 1: of middle power, which would begin with consistent spending of
Speaker 1: between three and five percent of your GDP. Carney says
Speaker 1: he stands in the course of the speech with Greenland
Speaker 1: and Denmark. He didn't say he's standing against because it's
Speaker 1: a uniquely cowardly approach to Reddick, like I said that
Speaker 1: named the president of the US, but when he's asking
Speaker 1: question the answer if there's an off ramp on the subject.
Speaker 1: Carney says he's hopeful that the quote discussions have been
Speaker 1: catalyzed in an unusual way. In other words, Trump's getting
Speaker 1: it done because we need golden doll. Carney talks about
Speaker 1: the need for Europe and the transpecific partnership to get
Speaker 1: together to expand trade and counterock the hedgemons. First of all,
Speaker 1: you should know there is no Transpacific partnership. It's a dream. Secondly, hedgemons,
Speaker 1: China and the United States are the big superpowers. I
Speaker 1: guess we're the same. He really did say the two hedgemons,
Speaker 1: the Middle Powers have to stand against the two hedgemons,
Speaker 1: US stand against US. No difference at all between China
Speaker 1: and the United States. He doesn't mention the sixty two
Speaker 1: billion dollar trade surplus that Canada has with the US.
Speaker 1: In fact, his speech is free of hard facts. He
Speaker 1: does mention, I should say, he does mention that Canada
Speaker 1: has submarines. It does. Four submarines, the newest of what
Speaker 1: was commissioned in twenty fifteen. The other three were commissioned
Speaker 1: in two thousand and three, two of them, and in
Speaker 1: two thousand I got a twenty six year old submarine
Speaker 1: like a Beatles song. Canada has a standing military of
Speaker 1: sixty eight thousand. Unlike Poland and Finland, they are frontlines
Speaker 1: states with Russia. They do as much as they can
Speaker 1: with as much as they have. Canada doesn't really actually
Speaker 1: have the ability to repulse a conventional incursion from Russia
Speaker 1: without the US to back it up quickly. You know,
Speaker 1: Finland's got reserve forces. They only have standing on me
Speaker 1: at twenty three twenty four thousand, but they have reserve
Speaker 1: forces of two hundred and eighty thousand that can mobilize
Speaker 1: immediately if Putin gets pesky up North and Poland spends
Speaker 1: close to five percent of their GDP on defense. Those
Speaker 1: are middle powers. Now the big power, Israel punches so
Speaker 1: far above them with ten million people. So it's not
Speaker 1: like they can't do it. They're a free writer. Canada
Speaker 1: is a free writer. They're a nice free writer. We
Speaker 1: like hockey, we like maple syrup. We like to go
Speaker 1: to Toronto and Montreal. People like to visit there. But they
Speaker 1: are a free rider. And when he compares us to
Speaker 1: China and he just got back from China said he
Speaker 1: had a good, great meeting there, and he has an
Speaker 1: alliance with China. Twice in this speech. It's at the
Speaker 1: end of this he mentions human rights. Just keep in
Speaker 1: mind the genocide of the Wigers, the crushing of Hong
Speaker 1: Kong's freedoms, the ongoing threat to Taiwan, Jimmy Laive's imprisonment.
Speaker 1: None of that distinguishes that Hedgemond from our being a Hegemont.
Speaker 1: So the truth is hard truth. Canada lives under the
Speaker 1: umbrella of the United States and has for eighty years.
Speaker 1: It has its excellent standard of living because of the
Speaker 1: freedom of the seas guaranteed by the United States Navy
Speaker 1: and by our trade with them. When you hear Carney declared,
Speaker 1: and you will Canada be an energy superpower, ask yourself
Speaker 1: which countries doesn't sell its oil too? That would be
Speaker 1: US mostly, And to which countries it could sell the
Speaker 1: oil should freedom of the seas be contested? Justin Trudeau
Speaker 1: was a clown right Mark Carney appears to be the
Speaker 1: vain banker from the Bonfire of the Vanities by Tom
Speaker 1: Will the master of the universe in an imaginary world.
Speaker 1: Of course, he got a standing ovation at Davos for
Speaker 1: his middle power at chess thumping. What in the world
Speaker 1: has happened in Canada since the days of Harper and Mulroney,
Speaker 1: I don't know, but that's on my mind today when
Speaker 1: I talk with Kontinetti, with Ben Dominich, and we're going
Speaker 1: to cover Jack Smith, We're going to cover Greenland, We're
Speaker 1: going to cover everything that happened during the week, especially
Speaker 1: whether or not President Trump should and will strike Iran.
Speaker 1: That's the most important issue in the world. That's, by
Speaker 1: the way, he doesn't mention that Karnee didn't mention the
Speaker 1: fact that President Trump got rid of the nuclear program,
Speaker 1: obliterated it to the benefit of the entire world, something
Speaker 1: that no other power, the other hedgemond wasn't going to
Speaker 1: do because the other hedgemon buys all of its oil
Speaker 1: from Iran, which allows Iron to mo down fifteen thousand people.
Speaker 1: Mark Corney doesn't know that you think I'm a little
Speaker 1: bit upset with Mark carnieat he's a banker. It's like
Speaker 1: Mayor Frye had submarines and oil that he's just basically
Speaker 1: a blue state mayor, the blue state mayor of Canada.
Speaker 1: Mark Carney. What a smarmy speech. But that just leads
Speaker 1: us in to the big weekend pod enjoy. Welcome back, America.
Speaker 1: I'm Hugh Hewett. I'm joined by Matt Contadenny, who is
Speaker 1: of course head of domestic Policy Studies at the Canadian
Speaker 1: Enterprise North the American Enterprise Institute. He's also the Canadian
Speaker 1: Journal Wall Street Journal columnist, and he's just back from Canada.
Speaker 1: I was going to call him the Kim Philby of Canada,
Speaker 1: but I think Don McLean or Guy Burgess sounds more Canadian.
Speaker 1: What were you doing up north in the land of
Speaker 1: hockey and lander?
Speaker 2: That's Flanders on my character, comparing me to those Cambridge spies. No,
Speaker 2: I was in Canada engaged in high stakes diplomacy. Hugh
Speaker 2: went to Toronto Wednesday evening, spent a whole twenty four
Speaker 2: hours there with our northern neighbor.
Speaker 3: Touchdown in Ottawa.
Speaker 2: Briefly on my back to DC, and I can report
Speaker 2: the following Canada is not happy with President Trump and
Speaker 2: his rhetoric on Greenland or the fifty first state.
Speaker 3: And so my job there was.
Speaker 2: To explain what Trump is up to in shaping the
Speaker 2: world in order to create kind of the sinews, restore
Speaker 2: the sinews of Western civilization in preparation for the competition
Speaker 2: with China. I'd like to think I convinced a few
Speaker 2: of my Canadian friends, but it was tough going.
Speaker 1: You need to sit down with Mark Kearney. Have you
Speaker 1: listened to the Mark Kearney address at Davos yet?
Speaker 3: Oh?
Speaker 2: Yes, you know that speech was the talk of the
Speaker 2: chattering class here in d C almost as soon as
Speaker 2: it was delivered. And so ever curious, I went and
Speaker 2: I looked it up. I watched the speech, and I
Speaker 2: have to say, I don't know what all the fuss
Speaker 2: was about.
Speaker 1: Hugh Oh, I think it's one of them. More we
Speaker 1: have anti American speeches because it's cowardly. He never mentioned
Speaker 1: America or Donald Trump, but he talks about the Hedgemonds,
Speaker 1: meaning that China and US are alike, and then he
Speaker 1: runs through I'll just give you some of the highlights.
Speaker 1: Cut number four.
Speaker 3: We placed the sign in the window, We participated in
Speaker 3: the rituals, and we largely avoided calling out the gaps
Speaker 3: between rhetoric and reality. This bargain no longer works. Let
Speaker 3: me be direct. We are in the midst of a rupture.
Speaker 1: Not a transition, all right, Matt, A rupture. They are
Speaker 1: not protected from the world without us. They depend upon
Speaker 1: our nuclear umbrella, our military. They have four submarines, sixty
Speaker 1: eight thousand soldiers. They spend less than two percent of
Speaker 1: their GDP on national defense, and the oil they send
Speaker 1: abroad is only because we maintain freedom of the seas.
Speaker 1: If we didn't, they'd have to sell it all to us.
Speaker 1: It was the most arrogant, two faced thing I have
Speaker 1: heard from a world leader who depends upon America to
Speaker 1: the extent that Canada does. It really enraged me, So
Speaker 1: tell me why I'm wrong.
Speaker 3: No, I don't think you're wrong.
Speaker 2: I think there are two main problems with this speech
Speaker 2: that Prime Minister carneg gave. The first one is there
Speaker 2: was no action item. It was all rhetoric. It's all
Speaker 2: quotations from Thucydides and Bossil of Hovel. But he never
Speaker 2: said what he was going to do except have this liberal,
Speaker 2: pluralistic society that he is oversees he governs in Canada.
Speaker 2: But that what does that mean? Is he actually going
Speaker 2: to spend more more money on defense? Is he going
Speaker 2: to correct the wreckage that Justin Trudeau caused Canada through
Speaker 2: socialism and through the Green New Deal?
Speaker 3: You know, the Canadian economy.
Speaker 2: America has opened up a tremendous gap in per capita
Speaker 2: GDP and productivity with Canada. Canada has real domestic issues
Speaker 2: that the United States did not cause, Canada caused them,
Speaker 2: and he needs to address those. And the second thing
Speaker 2: about the speech was I thought it was really really
Speaker 2: rich because he delivered the speech obviously directed toward President Trump,
Speaker 2: less than a week after he met with Sijinping, Yes,
Speaker 2: who does not believe in freedom, wants to set the
Speaker 2: rules of this new world order in a way that
Speaker 2: would disadvantage any country not named China. And Carney there
Speaker 2: was extremely solicitous, even slavish, towards Si Jinping. And so
Speaker 2: if you're going to quote Vaslovhavel about speaking truth to power,
Speaker 2: why don't you do it to the Chinese communist dictator?
Speaker 2: And instead of going up to the applause of Eurocrats
Speaker 2: in Davos, Switzerland.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Because at that meeting with Jijenping, he said,
Speaker 1: we're entering into an alliance. And I thought, oh, the
Speaker 1: Whiggers will love that. And I thought, Jimmy laies in
Speaker 1: a prison cell, and I thought, to what, Taiwan is
Speaker 1: being threatened every day, and that Hong Kong has been crushed.
Speaker 1: And he talks in this speech about the hedgemon. It's
Speaker 1: clearly China enough that I don't really really know how
Speaker 1: to absorb this other than he is of the It's
Speaker 1: like Jacob Fry with submarines. He's of the banking class,
Speaker 1: and the banking class likes China because they do a
Speaker 1: lot of business with China. Am I two hearts.
Speaker 2: Well, you're right about the banking class and the financial elite.
Speaker 2: But I think there's another thing at work here, Hugh,
Speaker 2: and that is domestic Canadian politics.
Speaker 1: Not true.
Speaker 2: You know, the thing about nationalism is every nation has it,
Speaker 2: and so we have American nationalism through President Trump, but
Speaker 2: sometime he's awaken nationalism in India and in China traditionally
Speaker 2: allies of ours, and so Carney was playing through a
Speaker 2: domestic audience as well, and I can report it's way
Speaker 2: he liked it.
Speaker 1: When we come back, I'm talking with Matt during the
Speaker 1: break about the new superstar of American of repartee, Scott Fassen.
Speaker 1: And then when we turn back on the other day,
Speaker 1: Jack Trump Wiltennet, I'm back with Matt Connetty to play
Speaker 1: from at two pieces of Scott Bessant and Davos if
Speaker 1: you may have missed it. First of all, here's Scott
Speaker 1: Bessant talking about Gavin Newsom and Davos on Tuesday cut
Speaker 1: number eleven. I think it's very, very.
Speaker 4: Ironic that you know Governor Newsom, who strikes me as
Speaker 4: Patrick Bateman Sparkle beach Ken maybe the only California.
Speaker 1: Enough good enough. And then cut number eight.
Speaker 3: We've seen the.
Speaker 4: Lack of energy security from this manic push for net zero,
Speaker 4: which I think we've seen in some recent scientific journals,
Speaker 4: has been pushed back. Even Bill Gates is saying the
Speaker 4: one degree, two degrees, three degrees.
Speaker 3: I'm not sure it matters.
Speaker 4: If you look at what he's doing with his own money,
Speaker 4: it looks like he believes we're going to innovate our
Speaker 4: way out of any perceived climate problem.
Speaker 3: So I think that's on one side. And then again
Speaker 3: I think this.
Speaker 4: I think we almost reached a Saturday Night Live moment
Speaker 4: a few years ago when it was you're not going
Speaker 4: to own anything, You're going to eat insects.
Speaker 3: I mean it was just the inmates were running the
Speaker 3: asylum at that well.
Speaker 4: I can tell you, after a few days of Swiss
Speaker 4: German food, I may switch to bugs.
Speaker 1: Got Eddy who knew that gott Besson was going to
Speaker 1: be up there with Marco Rubio for verbal dexterity?
Speaker 5: Yes, you know, Q.
Speaker 2: As soon as we finished last week's interview where we
Speaker 2: were talking about some of the great communicators in Donald
Speaker 2: Trump's cabinet, I slapped my forehead and said I left
Speaker 2: out Scott Besson and sure enough, he showed why he's
Speaker 2: one of the more effective communicators in this The other
Speaker 2: thing about Besson is he established a profile in financial
Speaker 2: markets long before the Trump era began, and like Donald Trump,
Speaker 2: he was a politically independent character. Right, but he has
Speaker 2: I think seen the light through the Biden Harris years
Speaker 2: and the Obama years, but the dangers of government regulation,
Speaker 2: high taxes, spending, all of the different energy regulations that
Speaker 2: limit growth. And so he's become a warrior for markets
Speaker 2: and for the Trump agenda, and he's entertaining. I mean
Speaker 2: that line about Newsom was extremely cutting, to the point
Speaker 2: where I think it left Governor Newsom speechless for a moment,
Speaker 2: which is a rare occurrence.
Speaker 1: Indeed, it's going to leave on Mark sparkle Ken is
Speaker 1: going to leave on Mark Matt Continey. We've talked about
Speaker 1: Joseph Epstein before, the soul of wit and written word.
Speaker 1: How do you know when you when you have wit?
Speaker 1: Because obviously Scott Besson has wit. We got we got
Speaker 1: a minute. What is wit?
Speaker 5: You know?
Speaker 2: It's a quickness, it's the comeback. It's being able to
Speaker 2: turn a phrase on a dime in response to something
Speaker 2: somebody has said or something that occurs. Joseph Epstein has,
Speaker 2: Scott Besen has it. Of course, in my view, the
Speaker 2: founder of American Conservatism, William F. Buckley grow is the
Speaker 2: exemplar of wit because he was able to come up
Speaker 2: with a one liner really just at the drop of
Speaker 2: a hat.
Speaker 1: It's a superpower. Trump, by the way, recognizes wit, but
Speaker 1: he doesn't practice it very often. He can get off
Speaker 1: a good one liner once in a while, but he
Speaker 1: recognizes it always as a good entertainer. Next Jack Smith,
Speaker 1: after the break, stay tuned, Welcome back to and you
Speaker 1: do it? Maat Cottonetty is with me, of course. Matt
Speaker 1: is with the Wall Street Journal, way right a column.
Speaker 1: He's also head of Domestic policy Studies at the American
Speaker 1: Enterprise Institute and our special envoy to Canada. Uh Matt
Speaker 1: last night. You know, Britt Brett Behar is so good
Speaker 1: at what he does with the panel. He realizes when
Speaker 1: he has to stretch the moment because smoke is coming
Speaker 1: out of someone's ears. I had a Democrat on who
Speaker 1: said Jack Smith did great yesterday and it was wonderful,
Speaker 1: and he showed him up. And then Brett turned to
Speaker 1: me and said, Hugh cut number three. Hugh final word,
Speaker 1: oh oh he I think Jack Smith effectively killed the
Speaker 1: appointment of special prosecutors. Today, I think Eileen Cannon's decision
Speaker 1: that she ruled his appointment on constitutional has been validated.
Speaker 1: He did not give answers, he gave evasions, and I
Speaker 1: believe that that will go down as one of the
Speaker 1: worst appearances before Congressional history, the other that I can
Speaker 1: actually remember in real time. So there was a differenceive
Speaker 1: opinion on the panel. What did you think of Jack
Speaker 1: Smith before the House Judiciary or Oversight Committee.
Speaker 2: I think it showed that he was the wrong man
Speaker 2: for the job. He wasn't prepared for these questions, and
Speaker 2: there are real questions. I mean, there are questions about
Speaker 2: his approach to the First Amendment and whether Trump's actions
Speaker 2: surrounding January sixth are exercise as a free speech, which
Speaker 2: I think there were. He showed lack of judgment on immunity,
Speaker 2: taking the case all the way to the Supreme Court
Speaker 2: and losing it. There are questions about the speech and
Speaker 2: debate clause, which I think representative guilt really got into
Speaker 2: when describing the way in which they pursued under arctic frosts.
Speaker 2: The communications of senior congressional leaders, including describing former Speaker
Speaker 2: Kevin McCarthy.
Speaker 3: As a potential flight risk.
Speaker 2: Now there's one thing I know about Kevin McCarthy.
Speaker 5: He's not a flight risk.
Speaker 1: No, he's not a flight risk.
Speaker 2: And then you know, you think about you think about
Speaker 2: Smith's resume and his case against Bob McDonnell, which was
Speaker 2: then thrown out by the Supreme Court. So you have
Speaker 2: here a kind of a pattern on the part of
Speaker 2: Jack Smith. And he is a relentless prosecutor. But I
Speaker 2: think one who is so determined to indict that he
Speaker 2: is ready to kind of walk all over the Constitution
Speaker 2: in the process.
Speaker 1: I keep referencing Javert from Lea Mease, and I wonder
Speaker 1: my question is did Merrick Garland know that and want that,
Speaker 1: or did he make a mistake. I know that Eileen
Speaker 1: Cannon's opinion needs to be revisited by everyone. She held
Speaker 1: his appointment is unconstitutional because he had never been confirmed
Speaker 1: as a prosecutor, for example, as the US Attorney would
Speaker 1: be and the prosecutory power. Robert Jackson wrote a very
Speaker 1: great I gave a great speech actually a Department of
Speaker 1: Justice to prosecutors about how dangerous it is to be
Speaker 1: a state prosecutor. He had to be careful. Do you
Speaker 1: think Garland knew what he was getting or just screwed up?
Speaker 2: He must have known. I mean, Merrick Garland has been
Speaker 2: around Washington, d C. For a very long time. He
Speaker 2: knows about Jack Smith, and he knows about his relationships
Speaker 2: with Komee and Fitzgerald and that whole crew. So I
Speaker 2: think he had a sense of what was going to happen,
Speaker 2: and it backfired. And we know that primary reason Donald
Speaker 2: Trump as president today, not just the total collapse of
Speaker 2: the Biden administration, not just Donald Trump's own extraordinary resilience
Speaker 2: and talent, But it's because of the Lawfair. It's because
Speaker 2: of the Lawfair that was spearheaded by Jack Smith. So
Speaker 2: I think this is a moment where we need to
Speaker 2: look in the mirror. But you know, Hugh, I was
Speaker 2: hoping you'd ask me about the Oscar picks, well, like
Speaker 2: you've been asking people about then Oscar nominee.
Speaker 3: I asked, if there's my chance.
Speaker 6: To weigh in, Well, there are ten of them. Did
Speaker 6: you see any of the ten out now? I've only
Speaker 6: seen one of the ten, and that's f one me too.
Speaker 6: I did not see in the theater and I thoroughly enjoyed.
Speaker 2: So as soon as you said that earlier this week,
Speaker 2: I said, Okay, I'm rooting for f one to win
Speaker 2: the Picture of the Year now.
Speaker 1: But I want to ask you about the most important
Speaker 1: question in the world, and it really is should Donald
Speaker 1: Trump hit Iran harder than it's ever been hit? As
Speaker 1: he pledged in me, if they would kill people? And
Speaker 1: do you think he will?
Speaker 3: He needs to take action. You know, he drew a
Speaker 3: line there. He has called for new leadership.
Speaker 2: He has sent this signal of force by sending the
Speaker 2: aircraft carrier group back into the region, and he's told
Speaker 2: the Iranian people that help is on the way.
Speaker 3: So action needs to be taken.
Speaker 2: You know, they've stepped up sanctions, they've stepped up the
Speaker 2: maximum pressure. But I do think that a strike directed
Speaker 2: at kind of the pillars of the regime security state,
Speaker 2: in particular the Basiji militias and the IRGC, which has
Speaker 2: caused so much havoc in the region and killed Americans,
Speaker 2: would be completely justified, and it would back up President
Speaker 2: Trump's credibility, and it would extend America's deterrence, and it
Speaker 2: would help the Iranian people who clearly believe that this
Speaker 2: government is illegitimate and should fall.
Speaker 1: Now there's a question which requires a little bit of prophecy.
Speaker 1: Barack Obama will never escape erasing the red Line. Joe
Speaker 1: Biden will never escape the collapse in Afghanistan. Donald Trump
Speaker 1: has already done the world a great thing by obliterating
Speaker 1: a nuclear program and by grabbing Maduro. But we're walking
Speaker 1: back from the threat of force. Here be a lasting
Speaker 1: mark on his legacy. As the historians assessed the Trump presidency.
Speaker 2: I think Trump's goal should be that there are new
Speaker 2: governments in Venezuela, Iran, and Cuba by the time he
Speaker 2: leaves office. And what a blow for freedom it would
Speaker 2: be if that was the case. He's removed Maduro from
Speaker 2: Venezuela and he is working with the regime now, but
Speaker 2: clearly there will be pressure as there should be, to
Speaker 2: transition to democracy in Venezuela. He has made this pledge
Speaker 2: to the people of Iran. He has done more to
Speaker 2: weaken in Iran in working with of course Benjamin and
Speaker 2: Yahoo in Israel, than any other American president.
Speaker 3: And now we have news that.
Speaker 2: He's going to really ramp up the pressure on Cuba,
Speaker 2: which is you know, in kind of the final end
Speaker 2: state the communist government there. So I think on all
Speaker 2: three fronts, he should continue the strategy he's been pursuing,
Speaker 2: with the ultimate goal of visiting free capitals in all
Speaker 2: three nations when he leaves office or shortly thereafter.
Speaker 1: And one minute Matt In March of twenty eighty three,
Speaker 1: Ronald Reagan gave an SDI speech which was mocked, I
Speaker 1: mean really mocked, mercilessly mocked as Star Wars and Israel
Speaker 1: had the Iron dram as a result. Do you think
Speaker 1: the Greenland gambit for Golden Dome will look forty years
Speaker 1: from now like a very smart move or will not
Speaker 1: be remembered.
Speaker 2: No, I will be a smart move. I mean, greenland
Speaker 2: strategic importance is clear. It's obvious to everybody. It's obvious
Speaker 2: to Russia and China. That's why Trump has made this
Speaker 2: play for it now. I think he rattled a lot
Speaker 2: of cages when he wouldn't rule out the use of force,
Speaker 2: and that's why it was important this week that he
Speaker 2: said he would not use force to take Greenland. But
Speaker 2: it's certainly the case that America needs to increase our
Speaker 2: presence there and we need to build missile defenses in
Speaker 2: order to protect our nation from nuclear armed superpowers.
Speaker 1: Always good to talk with you, Matt Continetty. Follow Matt
Speaker 1: Continetty read him in the Wall Street Journal on exit
Speaker 1: just at Cottonady, and we'll get the latest update from
Speaker 1: our special envoys from Canada next week. Don't go anywhere America.
Speaker 1: I stay tuned.
Speaker 5: It is in Hewig show.
Speaker 1: Oh, Ben Dominis did come just in time for me
Speaker 1: to announce Mark Kearney, Ben, how are you?
Speaker 5: I I'm doing well. I apologize. Megan woke up, so
Speaker 5: she now has the baby.
Speaker 1: Oh that's okay. Young fathers don't have to ever apologize
Speaker 1: for any And.
Speaker 5: There was no way I tried. I tried, I could not.
Speaker 1: If you had better get to the store before the
Speaker 1: snow comes, because I have.
Speaker 5: I have spent approximately seven thousand dollars good good, good
Speaker 5: good orders in the last Yeah.
Speaker 1: Don't show, it doesn't matter. Don't hurt your back. You've
Speaker 1: got the baby.
Speaker 5: Oh no, no, I have two different kinds of ice
Speaker 5: melting assault. So I'm good.
Speaker 1: I want to focus on Mark Kearney. Did you listen
Speaker 1: to his speech at Davos?
Speaker 5: Not only did I listen to it, I let off
Speaker 5: with it on the Big Ben Show. I know it
Speaker 5: and I found I found it refreshingly honest. I don't
Speaker 5: know what your opinion of Oh.
Speaker 1: I hated it. I think he's cowardly and hypocritical. So
Speaker 1: well we have a difference of opinion.
Speaker 5: Yeah, no, that's okay. What I also thought, though, is
Speaker 5: that this is not something that he's going to bye
Speaker 5: by in any real way. It's not something that he
Speaker 5: truly in on a on a Hypocritical is a good
Speaker 5: word for him, because this is something that I think
Speaker 5: a smart person recognizes, but then he takes the wrong
Speaker 5: lesson from it, meaning that I think that this, this
Speaker 5: whole you know, admission that like, oh we were actually
Speaker 5: just depending on the Americans all along, is honest and
Speaker 5: is refreshing. I think that the next step though, of
Speaker 5: saying well, because of that, you know, I mean, the
Speaker 5: implication is basically we need to expand the nuclear umbrellas.
Speaker 5: I mean it just if you take it to the
Speaker 5: end game of this you know too, And I think
Speaker 5: that that's something that is going to be terrible for
Speaker 5: Europe and for global stability, and you're going to have well,
Speaker 5: they're not going to.
Speaker 1: Do it though, Ben, this was fact. This is fact
Speaker 1: free posturing. I don't think so. Because they've got forty
Speaker 1: two million people, their GDP is two point four trillion dollars.
Speaker 1: They're spending a grand total of eighty two million dollars
Speaker 1: over the next five years to get to two percent.
Speaker 1: He said in the course of this speak, I've got submarines.
Speaker 7: You know.
Speaker 1: He got four submarines. Four Yes, one was built in
Speaker 1: twenty fifteen, the other three were built in two thousand
Speaker 1: and three, in two thousand. He's got no. Sixty eight
Speaker 1: thousand active duty troops, twenty seven thousand reserve. He's not Finland.
Speaker 5: By the way. The funniest thing about the Greenland deployment
Speaker 5: that I said to a friend of mine, and that
Speaker 5: friend with Lucas Tomlinson, by the way, it was I
Speaker 5: was like, oh, so that's what fifty percent of their force. Yeah,
Speaker 5: they're venting the Greenland.
Speaker 1: But what really, what really gets my goat is when
Speaker 1: he talks about the Hedgemonds, like we're the same thing,
Speaker 1: all right. He can sell oil to China because we
Speaker 1: protect freedom of the seas. If there isn't freedom of
Speaker 1: the season, China's not buying. He can only sell his
Speaker 1: oil to us, don't.
Speaker 5: You think, But don't you think it's useful to at
Speaker 5: least have someone get up on that stage who isn't
Speaker 5: Donald Trump and say we cannot continue this fiction that
Speaker 5: we are all living in. This this the system of
Speaker 5: a rules based international order where you know, we are all,
Speaker 5: you know, sort of existing underneath some type of inner
Speaker 5: national law and agreement. We're all sort of in the
Speaker 5: room together, kumbaya.
Speaker 1: There are two ways to say it. The way you
Speaker 1: just said it, or the way and by the way.
Speaker 1: The reason we aren't is because China got into the
Speaker 1: WTO and cheated. They steal intellectual property, they do dumping,
Speaker 1: they don't care about the environment, they use dirty coal,
Speaker 1: and they've imprisoned a million week.
Speaker 5: Nineties China policy just like the worst things, like the
Speaker 5: biggest mistake that we made and will and I will
Speaker 5: say we because I was totally I mean, I mean
Speaker 5: so is I. I was in favor of it, and
Speaker 5: I thought I thought this was the way to go,
Speaker 5: you know, bring them in. You know, have have have
Speaker 5: most favorite nation status, have to have you know, trade
Speaker 5: have that you know, be something that increases alliances with
Speaker 5: the West, and instead it's about exporting their values and
Speaker 5: not importing ours.
Speaker 1: And that just you know, you're going to read a
Speaker 1: book to your little boy one day called Willie the Wimp,
Speaker 1: because every little four year old loves it. Have you
Speaker 1: have you seen it? It's a gorilla analy and chimpanzee
Speaker 1: and and Willy the whimp, and the chimpanzee is his
Speaker 1: giant chimpanzee, and the giant chimpanzee takes care of the
Speaker 1: little monkey. And that's what we are. We're the giant
Speaker 1: gorilla and they are the little monkey. And I'm glad
Speaker 1: that they're a nice little monkey.
Speaker 3: I like them.
Speaker 1: But you don't go around with a bunch of bankers.
Speaker 1: And you know, he's the only guy that got a
Speaker 1: standing ovation at Davos. He got a standing ovation.
Speaker 5: Look, I think I think that one of the things
Speaker 5: that is so funny about Davos is that it's it's
Speaker 5: just everything is posturing and behind the scenes, they're all
Speaker 5: going to the same you know, things together and they're
Speaker 5: all i mean, Gavin Newsome met with Donald Trump apparently,
Speaker 5: you know, like it's it's one of these things where
Speaker 5: you know, it's just so deeply corrupt and one of
Speaker 5: the things that I do appreciate about this particular moment
Speaker 5: as it relates to the Greenland situation, is that the
Speaker 5: President's approach of foreign policy, I think has been vindicated
Speaker 5: so many times that now he thinks he can just
Speaker 5: like he can hit that number on Roulette every single time,
Speaker 5: I can get it every single time, you know, And
Speaker 5: and I'm not sure he's going to get it everything.
Speaker 1: Wall You know, I followed Lucas on Special Report last night.
Speaker 1: He's on Greenland, and I think we had a breakthrough
Speaker 1: this week because now everyone agrees Greenland is necessary for
Speaker 1: Golden Dum and it's just the details.
Speaker 5: That's the break's details. And the breakthrough too is that,
Speaker 5: as I have argued, as my friend Josh Raphino has
Speaker 5: argued in multiple essays, including a Wall Street Journal, there
Speaker 5: is a sovereignty solution here that is right in front
Speaker 5: of you, and it just, you know, basically requires that
Speaker 5: that type of movement in our direction. It does not
Speaker 5: require an invasion, it does not require us to spend
Speaker 5: an enormous amount of money buying it, but it requires
Speaker 5: America to have a sovereign footprint there that is in
Speaker 5: our security interest, both long term and right now. And
Speaker 5: I think that that's something that everyone has come around
Speaker 5: to because it's just impossible to deny. Yeah, and you
Speaker 5: know that's that's something that to your point, Trump sort
Speaker 5: of forces people into admitting the truth that they don't want.
Speaker 1: To unless they can go to a place in posture
Speaker 1: like Carney did. I'm going to come right back with
Speaker 1: Ben during the break because we've got to talk about
Speaker 1: the Big Ben podcast this week and about his expert
Speaker 1: from UVA on cell phones. If you haven't listened to it,
Speaker 1: Big Ben Podcast on the Fox Podcast Network. He's editor
Speaker 1: at Large at The Spectator. His sub stack is the Transom.
Speaker 1: But this is a great podcast with Tricia McLachlan basically
Speaker 1: doing what JD Vance did in Minneapolis yesterday. But the
Speaker 1: expert from the University of Virginia. I'll talk with him
Speaker 1: and if he can stick around. After the break, we'll
Speaker 1: kick around Jack Smith some more. Don't go anywhere. I'm
Speaker 1: Hugh Hewett. I'm back with Ben Dominic. Ben. I listened
Speaker 1: to the Big Ben podcast today and it was fabulous.
Speaker 1: I like Trician McLachlan, but that was I basically did
Speaker 1: jd speech yesterday. So I want to focus on your
Speaker 1: UVA professor and his guidance on phones because just simply
Speaker 1: dumb phones still high school and no phones in the bedroom.
Speaker 1: That's all parents need to know, isn't it.
Speaker 5: I think this thing is really a lot more simple
Speaker 5: than people seem to be making it. Like there's been,
Speaker 5: you know, this whole public conversation around it. You know,
Speaker 5: the work that Jonathan Height has done, and everyone else
Speaker 5: who's who's kind of you know, I don't know, they
Speaker 5: just they've developed a whole conversation within the space. I
Speaker 5: think it's that simple, isn't it, Hugh? I mean it's
Speaker 5: And I realized I may sound like completely out of
Speaker 5: touch on this or or as if I'm some you know,
Speaker 5: throwback stoic, but you know, the question that I really
Speaker 5: have for him is why can't you just delete the apps?
Speaker 5: Why can't you just get rid of him?
Speaker 1: Well, he went further when he said, no cell phones
Speaker 1: at night in the bedroom because they lose sleep, and
Speaker 1: of course the boys are looking for body pictures. And
Speaker 1: number two in school, computers are overrated. That we learn
Speaker 1: by doing things.
Speaker 5: And I said, hallelujah that that point is actually the
Speaker 5: more critical point from my perspective. So first off the
Speaker 5: no phones in the in the in the room. To me,
Speaker 5: that's the same as no TVs in the room. But
Speaker 5: you don't, you don't, you don't. You shouldn't be allowing that.
Speaker 5: I mean, come on, it's a distraction. It's bad, it's
Speaker 5: and it's bad for you, by the way, as an
Speaker 5: adult too. It's not just bads so but my other,
Speaker 5: my other, I actually think that TVs should be you
Speaker 5: should have a central location or whatever for it. But
Speaker 5: but it should be something that you intentionally do. It
Speaker 5: should not be constant background or noise or what have you.
Speaker 5: But when it comes to the school part of this, Hugh,
Speaker 5: we are in constant fights about this. And and I
Speaker 5: will say this as as someone who sends, uh, you know,
Speaker 5: my kids to some pretty top slight expensive schools. Don't
Speaker 5: be no offense to any listener, but like I mean,
Speaker 5: I think they're a little too pricey because I was
Speaker 5: home school all the way. But anyway, the point is
Speaker 5: that is a point of contention among everyone. It's not
Speaker 5: just the public schoolers, it's it's the private schoolers too.
Speaker 5: And the schools are constant pushing you to do more screens,
Speaker 5: to say like, oh no, you I mean just this
Speaker 5: this snowstorm, you know coming up, you know here, the
Speaker 5: school sends out something about, you know, make sure to
Speaker 5: you know, have your kid take the iPad home, and
Speaker 5: they want to, they need, you know, we need to
Speaker 5: be able to zoom in for class. And it's like, no,
Speaker 5: we're not going to do that.
Speaker 1: We're not going to do that.
Speaker 5: Yeah, we're just not going to do that because that's
Speaker 5: not the way that people learn.
Speaker 1: But I was glad to hear you say, is that
Speaker 1: it's become a source of a program. If you are
Speaker 1: in a restaurant and you give the kid the phone,
Speaker 1: because it is I always I cast an I cast
Speaker 1: a glance like that thirty seconds Ben. How often do
Speaker 1: you get that look?
Speaker 5: Uh?
Speaker 3: For? For me? Uh?
Speaker 5: I have quite honestly, I have never opened my phone
Speaker 5: and shown my kids of the restaurants. Never I will.
Speaker 5: I will say that I've been at table where other
Speaker 5: people have done that and my kids have watched, and
Speaker 5: I have not objected. But I have never done that
Speaker 5: with my phone, and I don't never intend to, because
Speaker 5: I think that is an admission of failure.
Speaker 1: Yeah, but I do believe that they are permissible on
Speaker 1: long car rides and airplanes.
Speaker 5: Lights. That's fine, it's a long time rights and airplanes.
Speaker 5: Maybe it's the same thing that everybody else is doing,
Speaker 5: you know, so I don't have a problem with that.
Speaker 5: You can bring a certain amount of games and entertainment,
Speaker 5: but eventually they're going to move from the plate out
Speaker 5: to just need to watch those things.
Speaker 1: Coming back with Ben on Jack Smith, don't go anywhere.
Speaker 1: I am back with Ben Dominich, host of the Big
Speaker 1: Ben podcast on the Fox Podcast Network. You can read
Speaker 1: him in the Spectator, you can read his substack at
Speaker 1: the Transom, and you can follow him on x at
Speaker 1: b Dominich. Ben, I want to give you four uninterrupted
Speaker 1: moments for your comments on Jack Smith and what we
Speaker 1: take away from this, because I've already said my piece
Speaker 1: three or four times.
Speaker 5: Well, first off, I'll just say I don't I'm not
Speaker 5: sure that I have seen a person who has occupied
Speaker 5: a role as important as Jack Smith be in a
Speaker 5: position in front of a congressional hearing where he was
Speaker 5: more where anyone that I know of, was more dismissive, disrespectful,
Speaker 5: and you know, quite frankly full of hubris about everything
Speaker 5: that he did in his role. Ever in front of
Speaker 5: the Congress, and keep in mind, we've seen Anthony Fauci justified.
Speaker 5: I mean, this is this is this is quite you know,
Speaker 5: as a sort of you know, one one to achieve.
Speaker 5: And so I think that jack Smith, you know, came
Speaker 5: in and did himself no favors because there was no
Speaker 5: humility on his part, especially when it came to the
Speaker 5: issues related to grabbing the phone records of members of
Speaker 5: Congress and the records of all these different citizens across
Speaker 5: the country. I hope that you have seen, maybe you
Speaker 5: played it that the audio of Chip Roy talking to
Speaker 5: him about this, But the idea that you could just
Speaker 5: seize and go after all of these things years after
Speaker 5: the fact, by the way, and not in four members
Speaker 5: of Congress, that you're just going to be snarfing up
Speaker 5: their phone records, it's I mean, that's subscene.
Speaker 1: You can't just Jackson, when he was Attorney General, gave
Speaker 1: a very famous speech about the power of the prosecutor
Speaker 1: and why you've got to be very careful. He went rogue,
Speaker 1: he went javert, and I think Eileen Cannon's ruling that
Speaker 1: his appointment was unconstitutional bears up very well because he
Speaker 1: had never you can appoint a US attorney to be
Speaker 1: a special counsel. And that's fine. They've got the right temperament,
Speaker 1: the right judgment. They've passed through Senate confirmation. This guy
Speaker 1: is a fanatic and.
Speaker 5: Therefore it's obscene. I mean, it's you say, when Javert,
Speaker 5: Javert had the honor to jump off the bridge.
Speaker 1: So I don't want him doing that. I just wanted
Speaker 1: to go away, just to be clear.
Speaker 5: But I'm just saying there was a moment of clarity
Speaker 5: for him. This is this is a guy who just
Speaker 5: really thinks that he did everything right that you know,
Speaker 5: he just you know, helps one of Chips questions to
Speaker 5: him and it was just you know, you you know,
Speaker 5: there's just and Kevin KYLEI asked it in a slightly
Speaker 5: different way, but it's one of these things where this
Speaker 5: you you come in front of Congress after something as
Speaker 5: botched as this, and you don't at least have a
Speaker 5: humility to admit maybe we overreached in certain areas, maybe
Speaker 5: we should have done some things differently. You know, we
Speaker 5: were trying to do this in a responsible way, and
Speaker 5: instead we gave a reflection of it as a partisan investigation.
Speaker 5: There was none of that.
Speaker 1: So the key question is did Merrick Garland get what
Speaker 1: he wanted or did he just get punked by someone
Speaker 1: making a recommendation.
Speaker 5: You know, that is a big question and I don't
Speaker 5: know the answer to it. I would incline more towards
Speaker 5: the latter, but that's only because I think I think
Speaker 5: Garland is not particularly bright, because he kind of half
Speaker 5: was right. Yeah, yeah, I just that is my impression
Speaker 5: of him, based on limited interaction. But I think that
Speaker 5: that is not I don't. I think he got jobbed
Speaker 5: in this right.
Speaker 1: Last question, of the ten movies nominated for Best Picture,
Speaker 1: how many of them have you seen?
Speaker 3: Oh?
Speaker 5: I've seen about half of them.
Speaker 1: Oh you are You're the outlier.
Speaker 5: You're the sixth person, Hugh, I have, Hugh, I have seen.
Speaker 5: I saw twenty seven movies last year, and of the
Speaker 5: nine were kids movies. Okay, And the best movie of
Speaker 5: the that I saw last year in theaters was f
Speaker 5: One whichever.
Speaker 1: Yeah, well that's the only other one that anyone's seen,
Speaker 1: and I agree it was it was great. But you
Speaker 1: actually saw Sinner?
Speaker 5: Yes, No, I mean I liked it. It was good.
Speaker 1: You're the only one.
Speaker 3: Okay, great movie.
Speaker 1: We're not going here for movie recommendations anytime soon.
Speaker 5: Well look, look, look, I will I will tell you
Speaker 5: the movie that I saw that I enjoyed the most
Speaker 5: last year was Weapons, And I also really liked Eddington,
Speaker 5: which everyone hated, but everyone me and John Fedortz.
Speaker 1: At least you've seen them though.
Speaker 5: At least Ben, I think it's good to go back
Speaker 5: to movies.
Speaker 3: Be dominants.
Speaker 1: Thank you, my friend, Jonathan Williams, tax economist at alex
Speaker 1: American Legislative Exchange Company. Welcome back in America. I'm Hugh
Speaker 1: Hewittt on the weekend broadcast. Eli Lake joins us. He is,
Speaker 1: of course the host of the Breaking History podcast, a
Speaker 1: contributor to the Free Press, an expert on Iran. Eli
Speaker 1: in the Davos love in among bankers, did anyone have
Speaker 1: the guts to stand up and say, Iran just mowed
Speaker 1: down fifteen thousand of their people and imprison the same
Speaker 1: number and is the evilest regime on the planet.
Speaker 8: It's a really good question. I don't think anybody kind
Speaker 8: of put it like that, and I think that's exactly
Speaker 8: how we should think about it. But that said, this
Speaker 8: is the end of the Obama delusion. I have not
Speaker 8: heard from European capitals that there is a sense or
Speaker 8: an expectation that there will be new negotiations with Iran
Speaker 8: over you know, whatever remains of its nuclear program, and
Speaker 8: eventually we will knit Iran into the global order by
Speaker 8: investing in that country as long as that regime stays
Speaker 8: in power. I think at this point, I hope it
Speaker 8: the regime collapses tomorrow, but even if it doesn't, I
Speaker 8: just don't think that we're going to get back to
Speaker 8: what we lived through ten years ago, which was the
Speaker 8: idea that there would be major corporations investing in Iran.
Speaker 8: The sanctions were lifted as Iran built up this proxy
Speaker 8: network throughout the region and continued to have the nuclear option.
Speaker 1: They did not invite. They ended up disinviting the Foreign
Speaker 1: Ministry of Iran. That's but they have not designated the
Speaker 1: IRGC is a terrorist organization at the EU, which is
Speaker 1: a bad move. The most important question in the world
Speaker 1: right now, and I think by a lot, I've been
Speaker 1: on a Canada rant already today because the Mark Carney
Speaker 1: disgusting address or so cowardly in two faced, But the
Speaker 1: most important question remains, should Donald Trump hit Iran hard?
Speaker 1: And Willie what do you think Eli like, I.
Speaker 8: Think he absolutely should. I don't see how I mean, listen,
Speaker 8: nobody can bring to what's going on with Donald Trump.
Speaker 8: His messaging has been pretty consistent, and I think he
Speaker 8: tried to kind of create his own way out by
Speaker 8: saying that they had they had canceled the execution of
Speaker 8: I think he has a very specific number eight hundred
Speaker 8: and thirty seven people in the hangings, which he's talked about.
Speaker 8: We saw today that one of the senior kind of
Speaker 8: judges in Iran said that is not true and that
Speaker 8: they would be going forward with the executions. Of course,
Speaker 8: the death toll is horrific. I think at the very
Speaker 8: least it's four or five thousand, and it could be
Speaker 8: upwards of twenty five thousand or more. They've turned off
Speaker 8: the internet precisely for this reason, so you know, I
Speaker 8: hope that this is the kind of final straw. And
Speaker 8: then more importantly, the response from Iran's leaders up into
Speaker 8: and including Ayatola Ali Khamene has been effectively to taunt Trump,
Speaker 8: yes to question his resolve. That that didn't go very
Speaker 8: well for Nicholas Medoro, it didn't go very well for
Speaker 8: Costum Soulamani and I think that they in some ways
Speaker 8: in that respect, they are sealing their fate.
Speaker 3: My wary is though that.
Speaker 8: I would have liked to have seen something, and I
Speaker 8: understand military assets have to be in place. I also
Speaker 8: understand that, according to a lot of reporting, and I've
Speaker 8: heard this too in my reporting, that Trump really does
Speaker 8: want a comprehensive military option and to go big. So
Speaker 8: that maybe takes time, but it would have been good
Speaker 8: to have something two weeks ago, a week and a
Speaker 8: half ago, when he said help was on the way,
Speaker 8: because I think the perception is is that there was
Speaker 8: at least a chance that Trump would back off and
Speaker 8: would seek some kind of deal. I don't think that's
Speaker 8: going to happen. Let me go all sophocles on you.
Speaker 8: You cannot know how good the day has been until
Speaker 8: the night has come. And with Donald Trump, the whole
Speaker 8: Greenland thing, even actor the whole Greenland thing might have
Speaker 8: been a way to divert attention away from this. But
Speaker 8: I did have a very smart national security fellow of
Speaker 8: impeccable credential say we can't hit carg Island and the
Speaker 8: oil terminals, which is what seems obvious to me to's
Speaker 8: keeping the regime alive because that would possibly bring China
Speaker 8: in to rebuild it and to embed within Iran.
Speaker 1: What do you think of that?
Speaker 8: There's a lot of reasons maybe why you don't hit
Speaker 8: carg Island. You could also cause an oil shock that
Speaker 8: would do terrible things to the price of energy, which
Speaker 8: has been relatively stable and low, and that would have
Speaker 8: an effect in terms of inflation. So Trump's got to
Speaker 8: consider that. I think he would have an enormous effect
Speaker 8: if he just decided to hit the headquarters in regional
Speaker 8: headquarters for the IRGC, that's the Revolutionary Guard core and
Speaker 8: the besieging militia and then target started similar to what
Speaker 8: Israel did, start targeting senior regime officials up to and
Speaker 8: including Io La Kamine. You have a number of voices
Speaker 8: from Iran's opposition, not just on the outside, that are
Speaker 8: begging the America to hit the supreme leader. What else
Speaker 8: is there left to talk about at this point? So
Speaker 8: there are a lot of targets in Iran short of
Speaker 8: carg Island.
Speaker 1: Like carg Island is all that money goes to the IERGC.
Speaker 1: Canada is ramping up it's export of oil. It's at
Speaker 1: sixty dollars a barrel. Seventy dollars a barrel is not
Speaker 1: that big of a deal, and it can be we
Speaker 1: can overproduce. We are just about to hit full American production.
Speaker 1: But Eli, before I go, I got to ask you
Speaker 1: the Carnie speech and many of the other Europeans seem
Speaker 1: to take for granted that the United States will always
Speaker 1: protect them no matter what they say about us. It's
Speaker 1: a little bit of what Israel must have to deal
Speaker 1: with on a daily basis, that they are really the
Speaker 1: lynchpin to security in the Middle East, but they get
Speaker 1: dumped on by everyone and it's not pleasant.
Speaker 8: I would say this, it's empty rhetoric. Canada and Europe
Speaker 8: do not have the military, do not have the means
Speaker 8: to protect themselves. That is by our design, and there
Speaker 8: are good reasons for that. So I wanted to say,
Speaker 8: I don't want to give Trump a total path. I
Speaker 8: think that some of the things that he said were outrageous,
Speaker 8: and the way that he went about the Greenland thing,
Speaker 8: I think can have but it's not the end of
Speaker 8: the world, because there is no alternative right now to
Speaker 8: the alliance with America. I mean the meeting with g
Speaker 8: and the I'm sorry not even g like the senior
Speaker 8: Chinese official and the statement that you know things are
Speaker 8: going in different direction is absurd and Carney ought to
Speaker 8: know better. The idea that Canada is going to pursue
Speaker 8: the kind of relationship it has with China over the
Speaker 8: United States even under Trump, and I get you know
Speaker 8: why he's nervous about things, but don't make threats. Don't
Speaker 8: use that rhetoric because it's just not realistic. It's not
Speaker 8: in the cards.
Speaker 1: But they're going to sell a lot of oil to China,
Speaker 1: which is fine because we have freedom of the seas
Speaker 1: guaranteed by the United States Navy YEP. And if that ends,
Speaker 1: they can only sell it to US, and they only.
Speaker 1: They don't even spend two percent of their GDP on defense.
Speaker 1: Eli he talked about his submarine. I have four submarines,
Speaker 1: the most recent one which was built in twenty fifteen.
Speaker 8: Listen, I agree, and that some of this is exposing things.
Speaker 8: I mean, listen, some of what Trump is saying is
Speaker 8: I disagree with a lot of it is true. When
Speaker 8: we were fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. Yes, it's true
Speaker 8: when they say the British did fight, especially on the
Speaker 8: special operations side, absolutely valiance and.
Speaker 1: The Canadians lost one hundred and fifty eight people and
Speaker 1: also true.
Speaker 8: But I'm just saying the Italians and the Germans, we
Speaker 8: couldn't trust them to secure areas. They didn't they There
Speaker 8: are cultural issues there that are really deep. It's not
Speaker 8: just about spending more of your GDP. There's not the
Speaker 8: kind of military culture that we have in America right now.
Speaker 8: So those are deep things that our generations are going
Speaker 8: to be playing out over a generation. But like, let's
Speaker 8: let's be realistic. There is no alternative to American power. Europeans,
Speaker 8: Canada and they know that, no matter.
Speaker 1: How many times ago to Davos. I'm in the Killed
Speaker 1: Davos Forever club. But what do you think they like?
Speaker 1: Thirty seconds?
Speaker 8: I agree with Davos is a is a debating society
Speaker 8: of the plutocratic.
Speaker 1: Self pleasuring of the banking class. And I'm sick of it.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Eli Lake. Follow him on ex at Eli Lake.
Speaker 1: I'll be right back. America, stay tuned, Good morning, Glory
Speaker 1: and even grace America, Bones or High Canada. The weekend
Speaker 1: broadcast is underway, as it usually is, with John Ellis,
Speaker 1: founder and editor in chief of News Items which you
Speaker 1: can find by googling John Ellison news items. It's the
Speaker 1: only newsletter you really need in the morning. And the
Speaker 1: way John and I usually work Fridays is that John
Speaker 1: will send me a list of topics he thinks we
Speaker 1: got to cover, and I'll get smart about them, and
Speaker 1: then we'll talk about them only today great minds thinking.
Speaker 1: Like John's second item, which I bumped up to number one,
Speaker 1: is Canada. Oh Canada, John, I'm so glad you brought
Speaker 1: this up because I listened to Mark Carney's speech at Davos,
Speaker 1: which got a standing ovation. Moderator said, that's very rare
Speaker 1: at Davos, and it's because he's a banker talking to bankers,
Speaker 1: and it was really quietly but thoroughly anti American. Have
Speaker 1: you had a chance to listen to that speech yet?
Speaker 1: I have, I have not I read it, but good night.
Speaker 1: Listen to him. What did you think about the Well,
Speaker 1: let me let me give you the main clip, which
Speaker 1: is cut number five.
Speaker 3: Altilateral institutions on which the Middle powers have relied and
Speaker 3: the question for middle powers like Canada argue the middle
Speaker 3: powers must act together because if we're not at the table,
Speaker 3: we're on the menu. Middle powers do not. What does
Speaker 3: it mean for middle powers to live the truth when
Speaker 3: middle powers criticize economic intimidation? For this is the task
Speaker 3: of the middle power, all right, So.
Speaker 1: You get it, John, He's a middle Canada's a middle
Speaker 1: power between hegemons and I guess we're on the same
Speaker 1: scale with China. He mentioned the hedgemons. I'm insulted by this.
Speaker 1: He just got back from China, that genocide of the Wigers. Uh,
Speaker 1: Jimmy Lyon in prison, Taiwan, threatened, Hong Kong crushed, and
Speaker 1: he's lecturing us because of you don't like Donald Trump?
Speaker 9: Well, I mean I think that he You know, Carney
Speaker 9: came to power because of Donald Trump. The Conservative Party
Speaker 9: in Canada was leading the elections, the national elections leading
Speaker 9: up to election day by twenty five points. And then
Speaker 9: Trump was inaugurated and there was talking of a next
Speaker 9: in Canada, and the tariffs were announced on Canadian products
Speaker 9: and Carney vaulted to victory as a result. And so
Speaker 9: he replayed this card at Dovos and made himself something
Speaker 9: of a hero amongst what he calls the middle powers.
Speaker 1: Well, he made himself something of a paria to me.
Speaker 1: A couple other things, he said, one of my favorites, absolutely,
Speaker 1: my favorite cut number six.
Speaker 3: Our commitment to NATO's Article five is unwavering. So we're
Speaker 3: working with our NATO allies, including the Nordic Vault Gate,
Speaker 3: to further secure the Alliance's northern and western flanks, including
Speaker 3: through Canada's unprecedented investments in over the horizon radar, in submarines,
Speaker 3: in aircraft.
Speaker 1: All right, boots on the John. I looked it up.
Speaker 1: They have four submarines, the most recent one of which
Speaker 1: was commissioned in twenty thirteen. The other three or two
Speaker 1: thousand and three and two thousand and one. They spend
Speaker 1: less than two percent of their GDP on defense. They'll
Speaker 1: get to two percent by twenty thirty. Compared with Poland
Speaker 1: and Finland, which are at three point seven and four
Speaker 1: point seven percent GDP. They do not carry their weight
Speaker 1: and the reason that their energy superpower, another claim is
Speaker 1: because of the freedom of the seas that we guarantee.
Speaker 1: Is it too much for Americans? I'm a multi later,
Speaker 1: I'm an Internet. I love NATO, but this is poking
Speaker 1: me in the eye, and I imagine it's got to
Speaker 1: make Trump really crazy.
Speaker 9: Well, I think it makes Trump incredibly crazy, which of
Speaker 9: course is to Carney's at least short term benefit.
Speaker 3: But all the points you make are certainly valid.
Speaker 9: I mean, Canada, everybody, all of the so called Western
Speaker 9: countries benefit from the US umbrella, if you want to
Speaker 9: call it that. And so if you're going to be
Speaker 9: critical of the US, I think you also have an
Speaker 9: obligation to be appreciative of all of the advantages that
Speaker 9: you get from being aligned with US.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's all I would The thing that gets me
Speaker 1: the most in life, and I guess in international affairs
Speaker 1: is in gratitude. And Canada is not a middle power.
Speaker 1: It is an NX to the United States that's sovereign,
Speaker 1: but depends upon it. Let's go to your other pieces,
Speaker 1: because they make me happier. Let's talk about will Go
Speaker 1: VI and pilled form because this is a giant breakthrough
Speaker 1: from Erica and the world's health.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 9: I think everybody's familiar with the weight loss drug wigov
Speaker 9: and the other ones. But the problem has been that
Speaker 9: you had to get will go BE as an injectable,
Speaker 9: right so you and as a result, it's much more
Speaker 9: expensive to manufacture. You have to put it in the
Speaker 9: refrigerator when you get it, you know, all that stuff.
Speaker 9: It's now been approved in pill form. And although the
Speaker 9: price at the moment is the same, inevitably and invariably
Speaker 9: the price of the pill will come down because the
Speaker 9: cost of manufacturing the pill is much much less than
Speaker 9: doing the injectable. So we're going to have much wider distribution,
Speaker 9: much wider use of wagov And as a result, we're
Speaker 9: going to have different menus, you know, reduced calorie menus
Speaker 9: at restaurants, We're going to have reduced purchases at grocery stores.
Speaker 9: And my favorite piece was that the major airlines now
Speaker 9: projected because people will be weighing less, they'll save eight
Speaker 9: five hundred and eighty million dollars this year on fuel costs.
Speaker 1: All right, I think about the number of passengers who
Speaker 1: don't sit next to the plus sized passenger that's sort
Speaker 1: of in their seat. But do you think the United
Speaker 1: States ought to be encouraging people who are morbidly obey certainly,
Speaker 1: but even those they are packing fifty or more pounds
Speaker 1: or thirty or more pounds to go investigate this, that
Speaker 1: it's good for them. I think I think it.
Speaker 9: I mean, you know, efficacy and safety obviously are the
Speaker 9: big concerns, but those concerns have been at least gotten
Speaker 9: the approval of the FDA. And you know, if you
Speaker 9: have high blood pressure, if you have diabetes, and if
Speaker 9: you're either obese or morbidly obese, this is a game changer.
Speaker 9: And it means for the you know, for taxpayers, it
Speaker 9: means less cost of you know, on Medicare and all
Speaker 9: sorts of government sponsored medical medical programs, healthcare programs. So
Speaker 9: it's it's a win in every which direction, except that
Speaker 9: it will have a major impact on the food business
Speaker 9: and worldwide, the food businesses employees fifty percent of the
Speaker 9: world's population. I'm not saying that fifty percent grow carrots
Speaker 9: or whatever, but if you think about food and the
Speaker 9: growing of it, the fertilizing of it, the machinery to
Speaker 9: get it, you know, out of the ground and blah
Speaker 9: blah blah all the way to restaurants and waiters and
Speaker 9: bus boys and so on and so forth, that is
Speaker 9: fifty percent of the working the workforce of the world
Speaker 9: that remond So if you if you have an impact,
Speaker 9: even a slight impact on all those restaurants and all
Speaker 9: those grocery stores and all the farmers who have decided
Speaker 9: to grow different crops. The impact is enormous and we're
Speaker 9: just at the outset of it.
Speaker 1: Well, because of my rant about Canada, we're running a
Speaker 1: little on time. And they're two very important pieces from
Speaker 1: news items that you sent me. Gen xers and millennials
Speaker 1: are set to inherit four point six trillion dollars from
Speaker 1: their elders, and open Ai maybe flaming out in either
Speaker 1: order that you want to do. That last one was
Speaker 1: kind of a sock in the eye for people who
Speaker 1: are invested in AI. Yeah, I mean, the open Ai
Speaker 1: story is that.
Speaker 9: Open ai is spending vast amounts of money and taking
Speaker 9: in not very much revenue, and the question is whether
Speaker 9: that's sustainable. Where there will there be in twenty twenty seven,
Speaker 9: twenty eight, twenty twenty nine enough revenue to justify the
Speaker 9: investments that they're making now in data centers, so on
Speaker 9: and so forth. There's a guy named Sebastian Mallaby wrote
Speaker 9: a book about venture capital and AI, and he wrote
Speaker 9: an influential piece, I think in the Journal or The
Speaker 9: Times that said, basically, I think open ay is going
Speaker 9: to run out of money.
Speaker 3: So that's a big question.
Speaker 1: But the millennials are not going to run out of money. Well,
Speaker 1: this is the thing.
Speaker 9: Okay, we got the whole the I mean, there's nothing
Speaker 9: more annoying than the affordability issue when it's raised by
Speaker 9: gen xers and millennials. Okay, because they're coming into four
Speaker 9: point six trillion dollars, is that right? Four points six yea, yeah,
Speaker 9: four point six trillion dollars, okay, inheriting the most any
Speaker 9: generation ever in the history of that kindness. And all
Speaker 9: they're talking about is the price of, you know, going
Speaker 9: out to dinner. I mean, come on, giving a lot
Speaker 9: of money here.
Speaker 1: It's a massive wealth transfer over the next ten years,
Speaker 1: and two point or trillion of that is in property
Speaker 1: in the United States, so they'll get a stepped up basis.
Speaker 1: That's the amazing thing. The tax part to this that
Speaker 1: makes it an incredible windfall. But John ellis a great
Speaker 1: bit of news items today. I want to remind everyone
Speaker 1: Google news items and John Ellis it's the best newsletter.
Speaker 1: I read it every morning. I usually post one or
Speaker 1: two of the fifteen to thirty different bits of news
Speaker 1: that John finds by staying up all night and sleeping
Speaker 1: during the day. And I'm so glad you found the
Speaker 1: Canada thing. Thank you, John Dom, Welcome back America. I'm
Speaker 1: Hugh Hewett. Jonathan Williams is the chief executive officer of
Speaker 1: the American Legislative Exchange Council. He's also great economists. He
Speaker 1: puts together the Rich States, Poor States book every year,
Speaker 1: Rich Statespoorstates dot Com. And I got to tell you
Speaker 1: right now, I got the longer segment for John because
Speaker 1: we've got to talk about the good, the bad, and
Speaker 1: the ugly, and that means state taxes. John First, Happy
Speaker 1: New Year to Jonathan Williams.
Speaker 10: Well, likewise, my friend, it's good to see you again.
Speaker 1: Good to see you, and I hope you've got your
Speaker 1: snowshovel out. Are you ready?
Speaker 11: Oh yeah, you know DC they freak out here with
Speaker 11: about an inch of snow. So this is going to
Speaker 11: be real this weekend. It's looking like now.
Speaker 1: It's unfortunate that we've got a new governor. And now
Speaker 1: I'm Abagail Spanberger as well, and I want to go
Speaker 1: right to the fact and the first story I read
Speaker 1: about her, the very first story, is that there's a
Speaker 1: bill to put a death tax in Virginia. Hasn't everyone
Speaker 1: learned that people leave your state when you put a
Speaker 1: death tax in place, well.
Speaker 10: You would think, I mean, this is pretty common sense stuff, Hugh.
Speaker 11: I mean, we've had states all across the country looking
Speaker 11: at ways to get rid of their death taxes.
Speaker 10: Even in places like New Jersey. When Chris Christie was governor.
Speaker 11: As part of his deal he struck with the Democrat legislature,
Speaker 11: they begin to repeal some of their death tax that's
Speaker 11: on the book. So if even New Jersey is looking
Speaker 11: to part of their death tax, it's really a head
Speaker 11: scratcher that you have the left wing Democrats now in
Speaker 11: charge in Richmond looking to put one into place.
Speaker 1: And that's not it.
Speaker 11: As you probably saw on there are long laundry list
Speaker 11: of tax increases and bad ideas such as repealing right
Speaker 11: to work, and you can go down the line.
Speaker 10: I mean, but this is pretty concerning you.
Speaker 11: And I watched that race very closely with Winston Sears
Speaker 11: and Abigail Spamberger, and Abigail Spamberger ran all of her
Speaker 11: ads anyways, came across as a moderate Democrat that I'm.
Speaker 10: Going to do the sensible thing. I'm a common sense person,
Speaker 10: and here we are. We'll see how long that lasts. Unfortunately,
Speaker 10: I don't think it's going to be long.
Speaker 1: Turns out, Mom, Donnie in address, let's talk about the
Speaker 1: taxes there. There are a lot of states that are
Speaker 1: going to go off the good tax pass and there
Speaker 1: are a lot they're going to do good thing. Let's
Speaker 1: run through them. What else do they want to raise
Speaker 1: taxes on besides people dying in Virginia.
Speaker 10: Well, I mean you name it, right, I mean, it's
Speaker 10: the old Reagan line.
Speaker 11: If it moves tax, if it keeps moving regulated, if
Speaker 11: it stops moving subs. That's unfortunately what we're going to
Speaker 11: see in Virginia this session. And that's a high income
Speaker 11: earners tax. I mean they're looking to rival California with
Speaker 11: high income earner taxes. And so, whether that's that, it's
Speaker 11: hotel taxes, it's taxes on private clubs, you get on
Speaker 11: the list, and it is literally any idea you have
Speaker 11: on tax policy, on raising taxes, they're probably going to
Speaker 11: pursue it this year.
Speaker 1: In Richmond, Now, I saw taxes on firearms. Now I
Speaker 1: think if that's a standalone bill, it's going to be unconstitutional.
Speaker 1: Is it a standalone bill or is it a general
Speaker 1: sales tax?
Speaker 11: Well, I think I've seen it as a as a standalone,
Speaker 11: but I think it's very possible it gets looped together
Speaker 11: and as part of a budget as well. And you know,
Speaker 11: there's lots of ways that this can emerge as we
Speaker 11: go during session here. But what's really interesting here, Hugh,
Speaker 11: is that you know, if I'm in North Carolina right now,
Speaker 11: or if I'm in Tennessee on the other side of
Speaker 11: the Bristol line, and if I'm in West Virginia, I mean,
Speaker 11: this is economic development opportunity one oh one to attract
Speaker 11: Virginia of businesses.
Speaker 10: And it's as painful as it is as.
Speaker 11: A Virginia resident to say that these are huge opportunities
Speaker 11: for those states to continue to make gains. Their states
Speaker 11: are already way ahead of Virginia in many cases in
Speaker 11: our rich states poor states index. And you know, this
Speaker 11: is dynamic competitive environment and we're going to see what
Speaker 11: those states do to respond to it. Governor Patrick Morrissey,
Speaker 11: for instance, one of our great friends in West Virginia
Speaker 11: is per already proposed as state of the State address
Speaker 11: cutting income taxes across the board once again in that state.
Speaker 11: So I mean, this is a game on I think
Speaker 11: in terms of the mid Atlantic region and.
Speaker 1: Capital and people are mobile. I will not live in
Speaker 1: a state with a death tax. I just want that's
Speaker 1: taxing your well twice, it's been taxed before, at least once.
Speaker 1: I will not do it a second. I'll just leave,
Speaker 1: and I think other people will. Washington, like Virginia, want
Speaker 1: to do a millionaire's tex Don't they realize that people
Speaker 1: can move? I mean not some, but many.
Speaker 11: Well, the irony there in Washington State is they've been
Speaker 11: the reppient if so many people coming to Washington because
Speaker 11: they have been a no income.
Speaker 10: Tax state forever.
Speaker 11: Hugh and all the refugees, the tax refugees escaping places
Speaker 11: like California and other high tax states and going to
Speaker 11: Washington to take advantage of the fact that they were
Speaker 11: a no income tax state. As you know, we've talked
Speaker 11: about their state Supreme Court invented the right in their
Speaker 11: constitution to have a capital gains income tax and claimed
Speaker 11: it wasn't an income tax, and here we are, many
Speaker 11: of us warned that that would be the camel's nose
Speaker 11: under the tent and then'd be proposing other broad based
Speaker 11: income taxes. And here we go under Governor Ferguson in
Speaker 11: the legislature proposing a millionaire's tax. So unfortunately, there's some
Speaker 11: really bad ideas out there right now, Hugh.
Speaker 1: But it's not all bad news. You sent me good
Speaker 1: news as well. That will show up in rich Statespoorstates
Speaker 1: dot Com come April one. But let's talk about who's
Speaker 1: doing the right thing. South Carolina, by the way, sounds
Speaker 1: like a nice place to move to.
Speaker 11: Well, they've been getting a lot of residents already, and
Speaker 11: the legislature has just put for a great plan to
Speaker 11: reduce income taxes. They've obviously had to compete with North
Speaker 11: Carolina that's been doing very good things for years, kind
Speaker 11: of see a no income tax state Florida, no income
Speaker 11: tax state.
Speaker 10: Georgia has been cutting taxes and so they're looking.
Speaker 11: At ways to get down to a one point nine
Speaker 11: to nine percent income tax. So incredible progress there from
Speaker 11: a state that has not cut taxes as aggressively in
Speaker 11: recent years. But you know another one that I wanted
Speaker 11: to mention, Hugh, I just got back from Jefferson City, Missouri, yesterday,
Speaker 11: where I was on the ground with our Missouri legislators
Speaker 11: are ALEC delegation, and I have to give a hat
Speaker 11: tip to Governor Mike Keho, who has put it in
Speaker 11: a state of state address just recently, but he has
Speaker 11: a bold plan to completely repeal the Missouri income tax.
Speaker 11: Seeing all this movement around him and seeing that region
Speaker 11: with Sarah Huckabee Sanders in Arkansas and Kim Reynolds in
Speaker 11: Iowa and so many great movers, he realized that Missouri.
Speaker 10: Is quickly being left behind. They're tired of being middle
Speaker 10: of the pack.
Speaker 11: And he's got an ambitious plan to go and repeal
Speaker 11: the personal ends income taxa Missouri. So a kudos to
Speaker 11: Governor Kehoe for really being a leader on that this session.
Speaker 1: And ALEC keeps a great close side the American Legislative
Speaker 1: Exchange Council ALEC dot org SLASHU keeps an eye on
Speaker 1: the U haul growth Index inbound states you bought you
Speaker 1: haul's headed there number one, Texas, number two, Florida, number three,
Speaker 1: North Carolina, number four, Tennessee outbound states California, Illinois, New Jersey,
Speaker 1: and New York. You know you think they would learn, Jonathan,
Speaker 1: And what about we got like forty five seconds the
Speaker 1: Index of State Education Report which you released this week.
Speaker 11: Well, brand new education freedom and economic freedom go hand
Speaker 11: in hand. The Sunshine State, the Free State of Florida
Speaker 11: number one once again this year in our index, Arizona
Speaker 11: number two, Arkansas number three. Incredible progress for the lone
Speaker 11: Star state, the biggest gainer this year after their major
Speaker 11: school choice expansion that we've talked about a billion dollars
Speaker 11: going to families and kids across the state of Texas.
Speaker 10: So lots of great stories there at ALEC.
Speaker 1: I don't see Ohio on this list, Jonathan, are you
Speaker 1: doing your Michigan things are? Because I don't think we'll
Speaker 1: follow up well. Fuck Jarlen William, CEO of al ALC
Speaker 1: dot org. Thank you friend. I'll be right back on
Speaker 1: the u U show.
Speaker 3: Thank you very much, Larry. I'm going to start in
Speaker 3: French and then I'll switch back to English. Mercy, Larry,
Speaker 3: Thank you, Larry.
Speaker 12: It is both the pleasure and the duty to be
Speaker 12: with you tonight, in this pivotal moment that Canada and
Speaker 12: the world.
Speaker 3: Going through.
Speaker 12: Today, I will talk about a rupture in the world order,
Speaker 12: the end of a pleasant fiction and the beginning of
Speaker 12: a harsh reality. What you politics were the large main power.
Speaker 12: Politics is submitted to no limits, no constraints. On the
Speaker 12: other end, I would like to tell you that the
Speaker 12: other countries, especially intermediate powers like Canada, are not powerless.
Speaker 7: They have the capacity to build a new order that
Speaker 7: encompasses our values such as respect for human rights, sustainable development, solidarity, sovereignty.
Speaker 12: And territorial integrity of the various states. The power of
Speaker 12: the less power starts with honesty.
Speaker 3: It seems that every day we're reminded that we live
Speaker 3: in an era of great power rivalry, that the rules
Speaker 3: based order is fading, that the strong can do what
Speaker 3: they can and the weak must suffer what they must.
Speaker 3: And this aphorism of Thucidides is presented as inevitable as
Speaker 3: the natural logic of international relations reasserting itself. And faced
Speaker 3: with this logic, there is a strong tendency for countries
Speaker 3: to go along, to get along, to accommodate, to avoid trouble,
Speaker 3: to hope that compliance will buy safety. Well it won't,
Speaker 3: so what are our options? In nineteen seventy eight, the
Speaker 3: Czech dissident Vaslav Hovel, later president, wrote an essay called
Speaker 3: the Power of the Powerless, and in it he asked
Speaker 3: a simple question, how did the communist system sustain itself?
Speaker 3: And his answer began with a greengrocer. Every morning, the
Speaker 3: shopkeeper places a sign in his window. Workers of the
Speaker 3: world unite. He doesn't believe it, no one does, but
Speaker 3: he places a sign anyway to avoid, to signal compliance,
Speaker 3: to get along, and because every shopkeeper on every street
Speaker 3: does the same. The system persists not through violence alone,
Speaker 3: but through the participation of ordinary people in rituals they
Speaker 3: privately know to be false. Havell called this living within
Speaker 3: a lie. The system's power comes not from its truth,
Speaker 3: but from everyone's willingness to perform as if it were true,
Speaker 3: and its fragility comes from the same source. When even
Speaker 3: one person stops performing, when the greengrocer removes his sign,
Speaker 3: the illusion begins to crack. Friends, it is time for
Speaker 3: companies and countries to take their signs down. For decadesades,
Speaker 3: countries like Canada prospered under what we called the rules
Speaker 3: based international order. We joined its institutions, we praised its principles,
Speaker 3: We benefited from its predictability, and because of that we
Speaker 3: could pursue values based foreign policies under its protection. We
Speaker 3: knew the story of the international rules based order was
Speaker 3: partially false, that the strongest would exempt themselves when convenient,
Speaker 3: that trade rules were enforced asymmetrically, and we knew that
Speaker 3: international law applied with varying rigor depending on the identity
Speaker 3: of the accused or the victim. This fiction was useful,
Speaker 3: and American hegemony in particular helped provide public goods, open
Speaker 3: sea lanes, a stable financial system, collective security, and support
Speaker 3: for frameworks for resolving disputes. So we placed the sign
Speaker 3: in the window, We participated in the rituals, and we
Speaker 3: largely avoided calling out the gaps between rhetoric and reality.
Speaker 3: This bargain no longer works. Let me be direct. We
Speaker 3: are in the midst of a rupture, not a transition.
Speaker 3: Over the past two decades, a series of crises in finance, health, energy,
Speaker 3: and geopolitics have laid bare the risks of extreme global integration.
Speaker 3: But more recently, great powers have begun using economic integration
Speaker 3: as weapons. Tariffs's leverage, financial infrastructure is coercion, supply chains
Speaker 3: as vulnerabilities to be exploited. You cannot live within the
Speaker 3: lie of mutual benefit through integration when integration becomes the
Speaker 3: source of your subordination. The multilateral institutions on which the
Speaker 3: Middle Powers have relied, the wto the UN, the COP
Speaker 3: the architecture, the very architecture of collective problems solving, are
Speaker 3: under threat, and as a result, many countries are drawing
Speaker 3: the same conclusions that they must develop greater strategic autonomy
Speaker 3: in energy, food, critical minerals, in finance and supply chains.
Speaker 3: And this impulse is understandable. A country that can't feed itself,
Speaker 3: fuel itself, or defend itself has few options. When the
Speaker 3: rules no longer protect you, you must protect yourself. But
Speaker 3: let's be clear eyed about where this leads. A world
Speaker 3: of fortresses will be poorer, more fragile, and less sustainable.
Speaker 3: And there's another truth. If great powers abandoned even the
Speaker 3: pretense of rules and values for the unhindered pursuit of
Speaker 3: their power and interests, the gains from transactionalism will become
Speaker 3: harder to replicate. Hegemonds cannot continually monetize their relationships. Allies
Speaker 3: will diversify to hedge against uncertainty. They'll buy insurance, increase
Speaker 3: options in order to rebuild sovereignty. Sovereignty that was once
Speaker 3: grounded in rules, but will increasingly be anchored in the
Speaker 3: ability to withstand pressure. This room knows this is classic
Speaker 3: risk management. Risk management comes at a price, but that
Speaker 3: cost of strategic autonomy of sovereignty can also be shared.
Speaker 3: Collective investments and resilience are cheaper than everyone building their
Speaker 3: own fortresses. Shared standards reduce fragmentations. Complementarities are positive sum
Speaker 3: and the question for middle powers like Canada is not
Speaker 3: whether to adapt to the new reality we must. The
Speaker 3: question is whether we adapt by simply building higher walls,
Speaker 3: or whether we can do something more ambitious.
Speaker 1: Now.
Speaker 3: Canada was amongst the first to hear the wake up
Speaker 3: call leading us to fundamentally shift our strategic posture. Canadians
Speaker 3: know that our old comfortable assumptions that our geography and
Speaker 3: alliance memberships automatically conferred prosperity and security, that assumption is
Speaker 3: no longer valid, and our new approach rests on what
Speaker 3: Alexander Stubb, the President of Finland, has termed value based realism, or,
Speaker 3: to put another way, we aim to be both principled
Speaker 3: and pragmatic. Principled in our commitment to fundamental values sovereignty,
Speaker 3: territorial integrity, the prohibition of the use of force except
Speaker 3: when consistent with the UN Charter, in respect for human rights,
Speaker 3: and pragmatic and recognizing the progress is often incremental, that
Speaker 3: interests diverged, that not every partner will share all of
Speaker 3: our values. So we're engaging broadlytrategically with open eyes. We
Speaker 3: actively take on the world as it is not weight
Speaker 3: around for world we wish to be. We are calibrating
Speaker 3: our relationships so their depth reflects our values, and we're
Speaker 3: prioritizing broad engagement to maximize our influence. And given the
Speaker 3: fluidity of the world at the moment, the risks that
Speaker 3: this poses and the stakes for what comes next, and
Speaker 3: we are no longer just relying on the strength of
Speaker 3: our values, but also the value of our strength. We
Speaker 3: are building that strength at home. Since my government took office,
Speaker 3: we have cut taxes on incomes, on capital gains and
Speaker 3: business investment. We have removed all federal barriers to interprovincial trade.
Speaker 3: We are fast tracking eight trillion dollars of investments in energy, AI,
Speaker 3: critical minerals, new trade corridors and beyond. We're doubling our
Speaker 3: defense spending by the end of this decade, and we're
Speaker 3: doing so in ways that build our domestic industries, and
Speaker 3: we are rapidly diversifying abroad. We've agreed a comprehensive strategic
Speaker 3: partnership with the EU, including joining safe the European Defense
Speaker 3: Procurement Arrangements. We have signed twelve other trade and security
Speaker 3: deals on four continents in six months. In the past
Speaker 3: few days, we've concluded new strategic partnerships with China and
Speaker 3: cutter We're negotiating free trade packs with India, assion Thailand,
Speaker 3: Philippines and Marcasar. We're doing something else to help solve
Speaker 3: global problems. We're pursuing variable geometry. In other words, different
Speaker 3: coalitions for different issues based on common values and interests.
Speaker 3: So on Ukraine, we're a core member of the Coalition
Speaker 3: of the Willing and one of the largest per capita
Speaker 3: contributors to its defense and security. On Arctic's sovereignty, we
Speaker 3: stand firmly with Greenland and Denmark and fully support their
Speaker 3: unique right to determine Greenland's future. Our commitment to NATO's
Speaker 3: Article five is unwavering, so we're working with our NATO allies,
Speaker 3: including the Nordic Baltic Gate, to further secure the alliance's
Speaker 3: northern and western flanks, including through Canada's unprecedented investments in
Speaker 3: over the horizon, radar, in submarines, in aircraft, and boots
Speaker 3: on the ground boots on the ice. Canada strongly opposes
Speaker 3: tariffs over Greenland and calls for focused talks to achieve
Speaker 3: our shared objectives of security and prosperity. In the art
Speaker 3: on purilateral trade, we're championing efforts to build a bridge
Speaker 3: between the Transpacific Partnership in the European Union, which would
Speaker 3: create a new trade block of one point five billion people.
Speaker 3: On critical minerals, we're forming buyers clubs anchored in the
Speaker 3: G seven so that the world can diverse fly away
Speaker 3: from concentrated supply. And on AI we're cooperating with like
Speaker 3: minded democracies to ensure that we won't ultimately be forced
Speaker 3: to choose between hedgemons and hyperscalers. This is not naive multilateralism,
Speaker 3: nor is it relying on their institutions. It's building coalitions
Speaker 3: that work issues by issue with partners who share enough
Speaker 3: common ground to act together. In some cases, this will
Speaker 3: be the vast majority of nations. What it's doing is
Speaker 3: creating a dense web of connections across trade, investment culture
Speaker 3: on which we can draw for future challenges and opportunities.
Speaker 3: Argue the Middle powers must act together because if we're
Speaker 3: not at the table. We're on them menu. But I'd
Speaker 3: also say that great powers. Great powers can afford for
Speaker 3: now to go it alone. They have the market size,
Speaker 3: the military capacity, and the leverage to dictate terms. Middle
Speaker 3: powers do not. But when we only negotiate bilaterally with
Speaker 3: a hedgemoont we negotiate from weakness. We accept what's offered.
Speaker 3: We compete with each other to be the most accommodating.
Speaker 3: This is not sovereignty, it's the performance of sovereignty while
Speaker 3: accepting subordination. In a world of great power rivalry, the
Speaker 3: countries in between have a choice compete with each other
Speaker 3: for favor or to combine to create a third path
Speaker 3: with impact. We shouldn't allow the rise of hard power
Speaker 3: to blind us to the fact that the power of legitimacy, integrity,
Speaker 3: and rules will remain strong if we choose to wield
Speaker 3: them together. Which brings me back to hal what does
Speaker 3: it mean for middle powers to live the truth first?
Speaker 3: It means naming reality, stop invoking rules based international order
Speaker 3: as though it still functions as advertised. Call it what
Speaker 3: it is, a system of intensifying great power rivalry where
Speaker 3: the most powerful pursue their interests using economic integration, as coercion.
Speaker 3: It means acting consistently applying the same standards to allies
Speaker 3: and rivals. When middle powers criticize economic intimidation from one
Speaker 3: direction but stay silent when it comes from another, we
Speaker 3: are keeping the sign in the window. It means building
Speaker 3: what we claim to believe in, rather than waiting for
Speaker 3: the old order to be restored. It means creating institutions
Speaker 3: and agreements that function is described. It means reducing the
Speaker 3: leverage that enables coercion. That's building a strong domestic economy.
Speaker 3: It should be every government's immediate priority. And diversification internationally
Speaker 3: is not just economic prudence, it's a material foundation for
Speaker 3: honest foreign policy because countries earn the right to principled
Speaker 3: stands by reducing their vulnerability to retaliation. So Canada, Canada
Speaker 3: has what the world wants. We are an energy superpower.
Speaker 3: We hold vast reserves of critical minerals. We have the
Speaker 3: most educated population in the world. Our pension funds are
Speaker 3: amongst the world's largest and most sophisticated investors. In other words,
Speaker 3: we have capital talent. We also have a government with
Speaker 3: immense fiscal capacity to act decisively, and we have the
Speaker 3: values to which many others aspire. Canada is a pluralistic
Speaker 3: society that we're works. Our public square is loud, diverse,
Speaker 3: and free. Canadians remain committed to sustainability. We are a
Speaker 3: stable and reliable partner in a world that is anything
Speaker 3: but a partner that builds and values relationships for the
Speaker 3: long term. And we have something else. We have a
Speaker 3: recognition of what's happening and a determination to act accordingly.
Speaker 3: We understand that this rupture calls for more than adaptation.
Speaker 3: It calls for honesty about the world as it is.
Speaker 3: We are taking a sign out of the window. We
Speaker 3: know the old order is not coming back. We shouldn't
Speaker 3: warn it. Nostalgia is not a strategy, but we believe
Speaker 3: that from the fracture we can build something bigger, better, stronger,
Speaker 3: more just. This is the task of the middle powers,
Speaker 3: the countries that have the most to lose from a
Speaker 3: world of fortresses and a most to gain from genuine cooperation.
Speaker 3: The powerful have their power. We have something to the
Speaker 3: capacity to stop pretending, to name reality, to build our
Speaker 3: strength at home, and to act together. That is Canada's path.
Speaker 3: We choose it openly and confidently, and it is a
Speaker 3: path wide open to any country willing to take it
Speaker 3: with us.
Speaker 5: Thank you very much.
Speaker 3: Well, thank you Prime Minister.
Speaker 13: I don't think I've seen many standing ovations.
Speaker 3: At devils, so that was interesting. You said.
Speaker 13: There was a phrase in your speech where you said,
Speaker 13: sovereignty now is the ability to withstand pressure. Isn't Canada
Speaker 13: almost uniquely vulnerable to pressure because of the extent of
Speaker 13: your trade dependence on the United States.
Speaker 3: Well, the proof is that we have been able to
Speaker 3: withstand the pressure, and there has been considerable pressure. I'll
Speaker 3: give you a couple of facts. We've actually created more
Speaker 3: jobs since the tariffs were put on than the United
Speaker 3: States in absolute number, economies growing at the second fastest
Speaker 3: rate within the G seven. There are pockets of extreme pressure,
Speaker 3: without question in Canada. But headline, we're reacting. The second thing,
Speaker 3: and it's a fundamental point, is the recognition that we
Speaker 3: can give ourselves far more than any foreign country can
Speaker 3: take away. There's lots of efficiencies in having one Canadian market,
Speaker 3: the trillion dollars of domestic investment and building these partnerships abroad,
Speaker 3: all of which are bigger returns than what's been lost.
Speaker 3: That's not to say we would rather not lose it,
Speaker 3: but we can withstand the pressure, and we are.
Speaker 13: I was interested that you said basically, the old world's
Speaker 13: not coming back, so you're not seeing this as a period.
Speaker 3: We just have to get through a normalcy. We'll return.
Speaker 3: I think that is what that is our view, and
Speaker 3: we regret it, but we're not going to sit around
Speaker 3: and mourn it. We're acting, and we're acting in a
Speaker 3: way both it's in our interests, but we believe in
Speaker 3: a way with others that's building imperfectly in steps a
Speaker 3: new system. I'll give you one example on handback, which
Speaker 3: is we're members of We are members of trade agreements
Speaker 3: that comprise already one point four billion people around the world,
Speaker 3: so we have the most extensive network. We are trying
Speaker 3: with others to bring some of those networks together. The
Speaker 3: most prominent example is the transpecific partnership in the EU
Speaker 3: acting of a bridge. It's it's not a direct benefit
Speaker 3: for Canada, but it is a benefit for Canada that
Speaker 3: these groups come together, ANGOZI is here consistent with the
Speaker 3: WTO rules, both of which are and in that way
Speaker 3: we're building back out amongst willing partners.
Speaker 13: And you talked about the need not to put the
Speaker 13: sign in the window anymore to pretend that things are
Speaker 13: still the same. Do you think to put it directly
Speaker 13: that the NATO Alliance is still doing that, still pretending
Speaker 13: it's the old Transatlantic partnership when it's.
Speaker 3: Really kind of going. I think clearly NATO is experiencing
Speaker 3: a test right now, and the first response to that
Speaker 3: test has to be to respond in a way that
Speaker 3: ensures the security of the Arctic in a robust way
Speaker 3: for all possibilities. This is actually a point that we
Speaker 3: have been making in recent years. It's a point that
Speaker 3: I made at the NATO summit back in June, which
Speaker 3: seemed like a pledging some but also was a was
Speaker 3: to get NATO policies in the right direction. So I
Speaker 3: think in the immediate term one of the imperatives is
Speaker 3: to reinforce things that Canada is doing, Nordic balter Kate
Speaker 3: are doing, the UK are doing other NATO partners France
Speaker 3: included in a comprehensive way that provides much greater security
Speaker 3: in the Artic that this is the test, and so
Speaker 3: I wouldn't say the sign, the NATO sign stays in
Speaker 3: the window, but we've got to meet the moment of that.
Speaker 13: You also a big theme of your speech was the
Speaker 13: need for middle powers to work together. But you've just
Speaker 13: been to the other great power, to China, and I
Speaker 13: think people very intrigued by seeing that meeting. And some
Speaker 13: people say, kind of that's a mistake, really because you
Speaker 13: know you're going to make yourself more dependent on China.
Speaker 13: They're not that benign either. The US will be very annoyed.
Speaker 13: What's what's the defense of what you're doing and what
Speaker 13: do you have to get out of it?
Speaker 3: Well, the first thing is to say, it's not a defense.
Speaker 3: It's an I know the way you frame the question,
Speaker 3: but it's offense, it's building out, it's something positive as
Speaker 3: opposed to against. We're for something as opposed to being against.
Speaker 3: The second is they're very clear guardrails in that relationship.
Speaker 3: I spoke of calibration of relationships in my remarks, that's
Speaker 3: what I mean by it. But within those clear guardrails
Speaker 3: are huge opportunities in energy, both clean and conventional, obviously,
Speaker 3: in motor vehicles, in agriculture, in financial services, all of
Speaker 3: which is mutually beneficial. So it's additive. And look, it's
Speaker 3: the second largest economy and it's our second largest trading partner.
Speaker 3: We should have a strategic partnership with them in that
Speaker 3: within those guardrails, and that's what we've achieved.
Speaker 13: And it is an interest and reversal though because I
Speaker 13: think certainly during the Biden administration, there was this sense
Speaker 13: that the Western world was trying to decouple from China
Speaker 13: or the risk at least, and is now in this
Speaker 13: new world really going to go into reverse and de
Speaker 13: risking from China because there are other risks is less
Speaker 13: of a.
Speaker 3: Thing you need. Again, many in this room, this is
Speaker 3: there live. You need a web of connections and to
Speaker 3: miss out in that web some of the largest ones
Speaker 3: United States, we already have that China, India, Mercers or
Speaker 3: European Union. That's a mistake. That's not managing your relationships properly.
Speaker 3: That makes you stronger, it makes you more resilient. And
Speaker 3: then on top of that, I'll give you again all
Speaker 3: appeal since it's in the headlines to the Nordics, Nordix
Speaker 3: plus Canada, it's twenty percent of global GDP. It's not
Speaker 3: the first thing people would realize, but that relationship, which
Speaker 3: is deepening for security reasons, because we're like minded. Those
Speaker 3: are the types of partnerships that I think we'll see more.
Speaker 13: And you've got a round of applause when you said
Speaker 13: something strong about standing on principle on Greenland.
Speaker 3: Do you think we can find an off ramp on that.
Speaker 1: I mean, I'm sure you'll speak of it.
Speaker 3: But put it this way.
Speaker 1: If there isn't an off ramp, where does this cut.
Speaker 3: I strongly believe that there is a bet there's a
Speaker 3: better outcome that come from the discussions that have been
Speaker 3: catalyzed in an unusual way. Mantley. But and we absolutely
Speaker 3: stand by the principles that I referenced. That solution starts
Speaker 3: with security, and a security yes of Greenland, but more
Speaker 3: broadly of the Arctic. Canada is four square contributing to that.
Speaker 3: We're at the start of a major ramp up above
Speaker 3: and beyond, so we will be a major contributor to that.
Speaker 3: NATO has to deliver on that. We're working intensively in
Speaker 3: order to do it as well prosperity for the people
Speaker 3: of Greenland. In the end, it comes back to the
Speaker 3: people there, and there are opportunities to do that in
Speaker 3: ways that would strengthen all of the alliance.
Speaker 13: And when President Trump says, oh, you know, Greenland's on
Speaker 13: the threat from Russia, even from China, is that for real.
Speaker 3: I would say that there are threat. Russia is without
Speaker 3: question a threat in the Arctic. Without question, Russia does
Speaker 3: lots of horrible things, and I'll take the opportunity to
Speaker 3: condemn their unjustified and horrific assault on Ukraine almost at
Speaker 3: its fourth year. They are a real threat in the Arctic,
Speaker 3: one against we need to protect, which is why we
Speaker 3: have two hundred sixty four five day air sea and
Speaker 3: land presence. Is why we're adding to our submarine fleet,
Speaker 3: adding to our air fighter fleet, why we're building out
Speaker 3: over the horizon radar to protect from Russian missile threats
Speaker 3: and others, and why we will work with our NATO partners.
Speaker 3: The threat is more perspective than actual at this stage
Speaker 3: in terms of actual actives in the Arctic, and we
Speaker 3: intend to keep it that way.
Speaker 13: Another big issue that's going to come up this week
Speaker 13: is this Board of Peace that President Trump is keen on.
Speaker 13: I'm not sure whether it's for Gaza or for the
Speaker 13: entire world, but apparently Canada has been invited.
Speaker 3: Are you going to join? We have been invited, and
Speaker 3: let me start by I think we should recognize the
Speaker 3: progress that has been made in at least getting to
Speaker 3: the towards the end of the first phase of this
Speaker 3: process and the activation if I can put it that way,
Speaker 3: of the process. To set up the border piece is
Speaker 3: the start of phase two. Our view is and that's
Speaker 3: to be welcomed and this is a positive vehicle. Our
Speaker 3: view is we need to work on the actual structure
Speaker 3: of the vehicle you just referenced. Is it for Gaza? Well,
Speaker 3: the UN Resolution Security Council Resolution twenty eight oh three
Speaker 3: references a boarder piece for Gaza. That's where we see
Speaker 3: it becoming immediately operative and it needs to be. In
Speaker 3: our view, it's better to be designed in that way
Speaker 3: for the immediate needs there there are many other needs
Speaker 3: around the world. First point. Second point, it needs to
Speaker 3: coincide with the immediate full flow of humanitarian aid into Gaza.
Speaker 3: We are still not where we need to be. Conditions
Speaker 3: still are horrific, so that needs to come alongside. We
Speaker 3: think there's aspects of the governance and the decision making
Speaker 3: process that could be improved, but we will work with others,
Speaker 3: obviously work with the United States, because we will do
Speaker 3: anything that we can to improve the situation. Horrific situation there,
Speaker 3: and to move onto a path to a true two
Speaker 3: state solution.
Speaker 13: There's a suggestion you can get permanent membership of the
Speaker 13: border piece by polling up a billion dollars.
Speaker 3: You're going to write a check for that. We would
Speaker 3: write checks and deliver in kind to improve the welfare
Speaker 3: of the people of Palestine, but we want to see
Speaker 3: it delivered direct to those outcomes, those outcomes promoting peace
Speaker 3: and sower the mechanics and how it works that way. Okay,
Speaker 3: final question.
Speaker 13: President Trump and a lot of people who agree with
Speaker 13: him condemn globalism a lot, and I suspect you know
Speaker 13: you would be the kind of epitome of a globalist.
Speaker 13: You know you work for Goldman Sachs. I believe you
Speaker 13: were at central banker. You know you're comfortable and lived
Speaker 13: in several countries. Is globalism first of all?
Speaker 3: Is it a thing?
Speaker 5: And is it over?
Speaker 3: I think, well, look, understanding how the world works, having
Speaker 3: an appreciation for other cultures, understanding the connections, and being
Speaker 3: able to or at least appreciating ways that how we connect,
Speaker 3: whether it's through technology, trade, investment, culture can enrich our
Speaker 3: lives and that's a good thing. And also help solve
Speaker 3: problems being detached from where you live and the broader
Speaker 3: needs of society. There is an epithet for that. I
Speaker 3: don't know that the G word is the one, and
Speaker 3: there's certainly what we're finding. And to go back to
Speaker 3: the points that I was making is that there are
Speaker 3: a number of like minded countries that want to work
Speaker 3: through partnership to achieve those goals for their citizens and
Speaker 3: for the world more broadly, the call is for more
Speaker 3: to recognize what's really going on right now and to
Speaker 3: pool their resources to the benefit of citizens. So it
Speaker 3: won't be global, it won't cover the globe, but it
Speaker 3: will be more powerful.
Speaker 13: Okay, prominent, Thank you very much in day much
Speaker 5: You