Speaker 1: This is the Buck Sexton Show where the mission where
Speaker 1: mission is to decode what really matters with actionable intelligence
Speaker 1: mcnoma stake American bring You're a great American Again The
Speaker 1: Buck Sexton Show begins, CIA Analyst. Remember he's a great guy. No,
Speaker 1: Welcome to the Buck Sexton Show. This is Ben Weingarten
Speaker 1: in four Bucks Sexton. Always a pleasure to be with you,
Speaker 1: and want to start by thanking Buck as always for
Speaker 1: the opportunity to fill his big shoes. We've got a
Speaker 1: lot to get to during this episode. As you may know,
Speaker 1: this week, I released my new book American Ingred ilhan
Speaker 1: Omar and the Progressive Islamists Takeover of the Democratic Party,
Speaker 1: which uses ilhan Omar as sort of the personification the
Speaker 1: symbol of where the Democratic Party is is going and
Speaker 1: delves into the danger for American national security and ultimately
Speaker 1: our core values and principles to the extent this hostile
Speaker 1: takeover of the Party continues. So we'll get to that
Speaker 1: directly and infuse that into some of the stories that
Speaker 1: we grapple with during today's episode. We'll also talk about
Speaker 1: the coronavirus. That's where we'll begin today's episode, as well
Speaker 1: as a discussion on the corruption of our education system,
Speaker 1: the Democratic Party, showing that democracy dies in darkness, the
Speaker 1: increasingly hot confrontation with China in general and over Huawei,
Speaker 1: and the all important fifth generation technology five G technology
Speaker 1: in particular with David Goldman. Our education segment will be
Speaker 1: with Joy Pullman of the Federalist and last, but not least,
Speaker 1: we'll also have a conversation with Michael Pack, who is
Speaker 1: the producer of a spectacular new documentary on Clarence Thomas
Speaker 1: that I urge you to see. But as noted, the
Speaker 1: big talk today the last several days is this potential
Speaker 1: pandemic in the form of coronavirus. And this story, interestingly enough,
Speaker 1: implicates a major theme that I've talked about on any
Speaker 1: number of episodes filling in for Buck, dealing with US
Speaker 1: China relations, the threat of the Chinese Communist Party, It's nature,
Speaker 1: and ultimately what the consequences are for all of us
Speaker 1: to the degree to which it remains as strong as
Speaker 1: it has been. So I want to talk about the
Speaker 1: coronavirus story in context of what it says about China
Speaker 1: and then what it says about America in our reaction
Speaker 1: to it. Frankly, the shameful, sickening, and disgusting reaction that
Speaker 1: we've seen from the left politicizing an issue that cannot
Speaker 1: be politicized. Just like national security should never be politicized
Speaker 1: because it deals with the life and limb of American citizens,
Speaker 1: so too it should be the same with anything public
Speaker 1: health wise that is as major as this potential pandemic.
Speaker 1: Let's start, though, with China, where this whole thing started.
Speaker 1: About ten days ago, Jimmy Lay, a media tycoon, ardent hawk,
Speaker 1: anti Chinese Communist Party figure in Hong Kong, an owner
Speaker 1: of the Apple Daily newspaper, which frequently takes a confrontational
Speaker 1: tone towards the Chinese Communist Party, wrote an article in
Speaker 1: The Wall Street Journal that I urge you to pick up,
Speaker 1: read and let it absorb a little bit, because it
Speaker 1: describes the nature of China and also what it means
Speaker 1: for us. I'm going to read a little from that
Speaker 1: article and you understand why. In a moment, he wrote,
Speaker 1: there exists today no vaccine for the coronavirus now engulfing China.
Speaker 1: That is a challenge for President Shi Jinping as he
Speaker 1: struggles to contain it. But the spread of the coronavirus
Speaker 1: has revealed a truth that poses a much greater risk
Speaker 1: to mister She. There is no cure for Chinese communism
Speaker 1: except the collapse of the party. The more mister She
Speaker 1: pursues his authoritarian agenda, the more distrust he will sew
Speaker 1: at home and abroad. Far from transforming Beijing into the
Speaker 1: world's waiting superpower, his policies will instead keep China from
Speaker 1: taking its rightful place of honor in a peaceful, modern
Speaker 1: and integrated world. This much should already be clear from
Speaker 1: how badly Chinese authorities have botched their response to a
Speaker 1: virus that each day claims more innocent Chinese wives. He
Speaker 1: goes on to describe the Chinese authorities quashing those doctors
Speaker 1: who were speaking out in the Wuhan province where this
Speaker 1: outbreak started. When the outbreak did happen and a seafood
Speaker 1: market was identified as the probable origin of the virus,
Speaker 1: local authorities closed it down. They hid the threat, telling
Speaker 1: the public that the market was merely being renovated. In
Speaker 1: other words, as the outbreak was already underway, the local
Speaker 1: government did what communist governments always do. Cover up. Deception
Speaker 1: is China's true real rule of law and let me
Speaker 1: stop right there. Deception has been at the core of
Speaker 1: every communist aalitarian regime in the history of mankind. Why
Speaker 1: because the truth is the strongest weapon against its totalitarian regime.
Speaker 1: That's why they need to control the flow of information,
Speaker 1: and by the way, why they want to control all
Speaker 1: information and communications around the world through as we'll talk
Speaker 1: about a bit later, dominating fifth generation five G network infrastructure.
Speaker 1: Lie goes on. Now, the world must start asking something
Speaker 1: that Chinese people living under communism ask themselves every day.
Speaker 1: How reliable can China's political, social, and economic institutions be
Speaker 1: when it's local government leaders routinely lie to their citizens
Speaker 1: and superiors alike, Mister she has no understanding of this.
Speaker 1: He talks of a people's war on the coronavirus and
Speaker 1: has mobilized vast resources to combat at Communist governments excel
Speaker 1: at mobilizing resources because their command economies and these big
Speaker 1: actions quarantining entire cities, deploying the military, building hospitals, overnights
Speaker 1: can look impressive, but their efficacy is hobbled by the
Speaker 1: lack of free community. And that's what prevented Doctor Lee,
Speaker 1: the doctor who is a whistleblower on this who himself
Speaker 1: succumbed to the virus February seventh from getting his findings
Speaker 1: out in a way that might have avoided much of
Speaker 1: this pain. And the same problem makes it so that
Speaker 1: no one in China can ever trust what anyone else says.
Speaker 1: That goes for mister she himself. China's president cannot trust
Speaker 1: the information he is getting. The lack of trust means
Speaker 1: he must make decisions in the dark. No institution can
Speaker 1: function effectively this way. But stop for a moment just
Speaker 1: to point out that again, the free flow of information
Speaker 1: is pivotal to free societies, precisely because good ideas compete
Speaker 1: with bad ideas, and hopefully the best ideas went out
Speaker 1: if we're not suicidal in capitalism, why does capitalism work?
Speaker 1: Because there are price signals. There are prices that tell
Speaker 1: us how much people desire of a product and how
Speaker 1: much they're willing to pay for it. Coordinate the actions
Speaker 1: of millions of people, hundreds of millions, billions of people,
Speaker 1: and tell of those who are bringing those goods and
Speaker 1: services to market whether or not they're doing the right
Speaker 1: job and fulfilling the demand properly through profits and losses
Speaker 1: that can be analogized to governments making decisions as well,
Speaker 1: to the extent they have to intervene in different areas
Speaker 1: of our lives. If you have no price signals, you
Speaker 1: fail ultimately. That's why all these communist countries do ultimately fail.
Speaker 1: But they can hang on for an awful long time
Speaker 1: and create a ton of misery and kill millions of
Speaker 1: people in the process. Let me continue a little bit
Speaker 1: from this article. The Communist Party sees things differently. It's
Speaker 1: leaders are betting the projects such as the Belt and
Speaker 1: Road Initiative, Whawa's advanced five G wireless network, and the
Speaker 1: MAIDE in China twenty twenty five industrial policy will ensure
Speaker 1: China's global supremacy in the decades ahead. He says. Let's
Speaker 1: assume for the moment that this is true. Without institutions
Speaker 1: and a culture of trust, the China dream will prove empty.
Speaker 1: The Chinese Communist Party continues to rule using deception and fear,
Speaker 1: but as the coronavirus evolves into a global pandemic, it
Speaker 1: undermines the case for authoritarian competence. Even worse for party
Speaker 1: leaders is the potential for public unrest when the fear
Speaker 1: of death seems more menacing and immediate than the fear
Speaker 1: of dictatorship, and he quoses out his article by saying,
Speaker 1: this the devil's bargain. Mister She has always offered the
Speaker 1: people of China as this surrender your freedom and an
Speaker 1: exchange you will enjoy continuing material improvement in your day
Speaker 1: to day lives. But if the consequence of surrendering your
Speaker 1: freedom may be losing your life, that becomes a much
Speaker 1: harder sell. Today, mister She is still seeking more control
Speaker 1: as it means to stop the coronavirus, But control does
Speaker 1: not mean stability, especially when it helps create and feed
Speaker 1: a health epidemic. If the coronavirus does nothing more than
Speaker 1: expose this single truth, it may prove as revolutionary as
Speaker 1: any event in China's history. Let's just point out that
Speaker 1: our Democratic Party today wants control over every aspect of
Speaker 1: our economy and in particular healthcare. They want a nationalized
Speaker 1: healthcare system. We see what happens in China when you
Speaker 1: have a commanding control of so maybe those who are
Speaker 1: attacking our president this administration ought to step back a
Speaker 1: second and look in the mirror, and in the next
Speaker 1: segment we will talk about that. But I want to
Speaker 1: tie this back to the fact the story of Jimmy
Speaker 1: Lai himself, who wrote this op ed. It was revealed
Speaker 1: that he was arrested today in Hong Kong Friday in
Speaker 1: Hong Kong, quote, according to one article, for taking part
Speaker 1: in an unauthorized anti government in March last year amid
Speaker 1: the city's most serious political crisis for decades. Let me
Speaker 1: repeat that again. He writes this op ed ten days
Speaker 1: ago talking about the Chinese Communist Party's failures with respect
Speaker 1: to coronavirus. Ten days later, arrested in Hong Kong for
Speaker 1: his role supposedly in protests. Christian Wynn wrote a great
Speaker 1: piece on this I urge your read it on Fox Business,
Speaker 1: where he notes that he and two others Jimmy Lay
Speaker 1: and two others were charged and released for a legal
Speaker 1: assembly so called related to one of the scores of
Speaker 1: mass gatherings against the government that have taken place ince
Speaker 1: West June Andrew Ie, a pro democracy member of Hong
Speaker 1: Kong's Legislative Council, observed quote the three were not even organizers.
Speaker 1: This is clearly political persecution. Authorities also reportedly charged by
Speaker 1: with allegedly intimidating a reporter in twenty seventeen by using
Speaker 1: foul language. That journalist works for Oriental Daily, a pro
Speaker 1: Beijing competitor newspaper. In reality, the Hong Kong government, whose
Speaker 1: activities are increasingly directed by Beijing and the Chinese Communist Party,
Speaker 1: is trying to use the disastrous coronavirus outbreak to its advantage.
Speaker 1: Protests have dropped off due to concern about the outbreak.
Speaker 1: Rather than focus all of their energy on public health,
Speaker 1: authorities are evidently hoping instead to crack down on pro
Speaker 1: democracy sentiments. This politics before health conduct fits with actions
Speaker 1: by China's Communist government on the mainland, which included harassing
Speaker 1: doctors who warned of the outbreak and misuading the world
Speaker 1: of its severity and scope. So what is my takeaway
Speaker 1: from all of this before we talk about the impact
Speaker 1: on America and what a response has been. We cannot
Speaker 1: or certainly should not rely on China for anything essential.
Speaker 1: And you may have seen so many of the everyday
Speaker 1: medicines that we use in this country are produced in China,
Speaker 1: delivered by China. Parts used in American weaponry, in our vehicles,
Speaker 1: in our computers, and other critical technology that we use
Speaker 1: every second of every day made in China, the network
Speaker 1: infrastructure or the phones that we rely on to the
Speaker 1: extent it's Huawei back and even if it's not related
Speaker 1: to h Huawei necessarily made in China. You want to
Speaker 1: make the case for decoupling from China. Why we need
Speaker 1: to shift our supply chains away exhibit A. This pandemic,
Speaker 1: Not even to mention SARS and other problems that we've
Speaker 1: seen before this, you cannot be tied inextricably intertwined to
Speaker 1: a Chinese Communist Party led China. You can't. When I
Speaker 1: come back, we'll talk about the way that the Democrats cynically, shockingly,
Speaker 1: sickeningly are trying to capitalize on this crisis. This has
Speaker 1: been one garden for Buck Sexon here in the Buck
Speaker 1: Sexon Show. Be back just after this. You're in the
Speaker 1: Freedom Hunt. This is the Buck Sexon Show podcast. Welcome
Speaker 1: back to the Buck Sexton Show. This is Ben Weinegarden
Speaker 1: in for Buck Sexton. And before the break we were
Speaker 1: talking a bit about coronavirus, which has shocked those in
Speaker 1: our financial markets. And you've likely seen if you're watching
Speaker 1: your four oh one K or any of your portfolios
Speaker 1: that the last several days, the markets have tanked, to
Speaker 1: put it lightly, because of the spread of coronavirus to
Speaker 1: the African continent, including it one of its largest countries
Speaker 1: in Nigeria, in places like Italy, and then of course
Speaker 1: several cases here in the US as well. And Sean Davis,
Speaker 1: my colleague at the Federalists, had a great line about
Speaker 1: what the reaction has been here. He said, a handful
Speaker 1: of this is a tweet, a handful of never Trump
Speaker 1: a looo, and left wing media personalities are really struggling
Speaker 1: between bashing the redneck prepper rubes for being prepared for
Speaker 1: coronavirus quarantines and blaming Trump for not doing enough to
Speaker 1: prevent global pandemic that started in China. It's so strange, Yes,
Speaker 1: it is strange. Indeed, this is an issue where there
Speaker 1: cannot be the hyper politicization that there is in everything else,
Speaker 1: but the left is forcing it. My argument is simply this,
Speaker 1: we are talking about a potential pandemic and Democrats are
Speaker 1: trying to use this to bash the president. We're going
Speaker 1: to destroy ourselves if we can't get over political bickering
Speaker 1: and snipering in the face of all the myriad threats
Speaker 1: that we face, and it's to be expected, but it's
Speaker 1: no less shameful. I think that the responses from the
Speaker 1: media and other Democrats attacking the Trump administration's fitness to
Speaker 1: deal with this issue, because they love to talk, always
Speaker 1: talk about the fitness, notwithstanding their own problems, really reflects
Speaker 1: Actually they're not only their willingness to try to win
Speaker 1: at all costs by politicizing anything and everything, but how
Speaker 1: desperate they are going into twenty twenty. This is the
Speaker 1: thing that they're holding onto a disaster in the United States.
Speaker 1: That's what they want. That is what they are saying
Speaker 1: at the end of the day. And you know, we
Speaker 1: saw this before the midterm elections as well, many of
Speaker 1: them cheering on any sort of economic correction contraction because
Speaker 1: they know, they admit that the Trump economy is strong.
Speaker 1: It's the same thing here, but it's even more sick
Speaker 1: because this is again about the life and limb of
Speaker 1: American citizens, the first priority of every single representative, or
Speaker 1: what is supposed to be the first priority of every
Speaker 1: single one of our so called representatives. But for a second,
Speaker 1: let's also point out who the party is. If they're
Speaker 1: going to politicize this, they should be caught out for
Speaker 1: the fact that this is a Democratic party that couldn't
Speaker 1: build a functioning healthcare website with three hundred million dollars.
Speaker 1: They want to take over all of healthcare. They can't
Speaker 1: build a website with infinite resources behind it for their
Speaker 1: Obamacare portal. This a party that couldn't run a caucus
Speaker 1: in Iowa. The AP just announced it will not be
Speaker 1: able to declare a winner after certification is finally completed,
Speaker 1: which I believe it's used to be tomorrow, weeks after
Speaker 1: the caucus. This is a party of open borders. Meanwhile,
Speaker 1: according to one report, Brandon Judd, the president of the
Speaker 1: National Border Patrol Council, said on February tenth that there
Speaker 1: were three Chinese nationals who were apprehended illegally entering Texas
Speaker 1: with food symptoms and who had to be quarantined. Luckily
Speaker 1: they didn't have the coronavirus. But this is a wake
Speaker 1: up call, he said. This is a party of Bolshevik
Speaker 1: Bernie Sanders, do you really think that with a socialized
Speaker 1: healthcare system, we're going to be able to quickly innovate
Speaker 1: and get vital vaccines to the marketplace. No, we're gonna
Speaker 1: go the exact same way as China. You think Bernie
Speaker 1: would be able to deal with the equivalent of a Chernobyl.
Speaker 1: And by the way, we haven't had Chernobyls precisely because
Speaker 1: we're not the Soviet Union, we haven't had Chernobyls. But
Speaker 1: you have to think twice about if they were in power.
Speaker 1: And I'm not politicizing it. I'm saying that it is
Speaker 1: a threat when they are in power potentially. And I'm
Speaker 1: also not saying that I would be attacking them while
Speaker 1: they were in power. I would be providing criticism intended
Speaker 1: to push them towards doing the right things. Were they
Speaker 1: in power, with he and his central planners and his
Speaker 1: czars overseeing everything, you would run the risk of Chernobyls.
Speaker 1: So what do I think ultimately happens. If we're going
Speaker 1: to focus on the political aspect of this for a second,
Speaker 1: I think this is going to backfire on Democrats. I
Speaker 1: think there's a good chance of it because while this
Speaker 1: is something of a September October surprise, except months in advance,
Speaker 1: which they probably view as a bad thing about this
Speaker 1: potential pandemic emerging, I think the Trump arrangement syndrome is
Speaker 1: going to backfire here. They could have said, if the
Speaker 1: Democrats could have said, this is the time to come together,
Speaker 1: rise up a partnership, act like grown ups, even if
Speaker 1: they don't believe it, they could have said that. They
Speaker 1: could have pandered. They didn't. And what I think they're
Speaker 1: underestimating here is that one of the core traits that
Speaker 1: Trump exudes, and he has from the time he descended
Speaker 1: on that escalator, is strength, fortitude, anti political correctness, goal based,
Speaker 1: pragmatic again, strength at core, and do what needs to
Speaker 1: be done and cut the bs. So in a wartime
Speaker 1: sort of mode or a crisis kind of mode, you
Speaker 1: can bet that he's going to exude strength and patriotism
Speaker 1: and seek to instill confidence in the American people. And
Speaker 1: I am confident that we certainly have the capability to
Speaker 1: grapple with any sort of disaster to befollow us as
Speaker 1: a country, but not to the extent half the country
Speaker 1: or the party representing half the country embraces an anti
Speaker 1: American ethos like as I'll talk about the party that
Speaker 1: is now Bernie Sanders and ilhan Omar, the American ingrate,
Speaker 1: as my book title is, party Now represents. This is
Speaker 1: Ben Weegarden for Buck Sexon on the Buck Sex and Show.
Speaker 1: We'll be back at just after this. Thanks for listening
Speaker 1: to the Bus Sex and Show podcasts. Remember to subscribe
Speaker 1: on Apple Podcasts, the iHeartRadio app, or wherever you get
Speaker 1: your podcasts. Welcome back to the Buck Sex and Show.
Speaker 1: This is Ben Wee Garden in for Buck Sexton. And
Speaker 1: as I noted at the top of the show, this
Speaker 1: week I released my first book, American ingrate ilhan Omar
Speaker 1: and the Progressive Islamist Takeover of the Democratic Party. And
Speaker 1: I urge you to get your hands on at least
Speaker 1: a few copies of the book, one for you, one
Speaker 1: for your kids who need to read this before they
Speaker 1: get indoctrinated in the schools that we're about to talk
Speaker 1: about a little bit later, and we have another generation
Speaker 1: of anti American self loathing fellow citizens. And then as well,
Speaker 1: to bug any of your Bolshevik Bernie Brow friends, not
Speaker 1: really to bug them, honestly, but to point out that
Speaker 1: for those who are would fashion themselves JFK Democrats, your
Speaker 1: grandfather's Democrats or your father's Democrats, to understand the stakes
Speaker 1: if the Democratic Party is to be fully taken over
Speaker 1: by its progressive wing, and that is sort of the
Speaker 1: broader message that comes out of American Ingred, but it
Speaker 1: uses ilhan Omar as the figure to get there and
Speaker 1: also delves into not just the danger posed by an
Speaker 1: anti American blame America first cohort of Democrats dominating that party,
Speaker 1: but also the danger that ilhan Omar herself poses. And
Speaker 1: I'm going to tease that out and explain it in
Speaker 1: just a second, but I first want to point out
Speaker 1: people talk about ilhan Omar and focus on this figure ingratitude.
Speaker 1: That ingrate in my title is I think what the
Speaker 1: viscerally negative reaction is to someone who says that on
Speaker 1: nine to eleven, some people did something, or maybe you
Speaker 1: didn't see this tweet that Thanksgiving is a time to
Speaker 1: remember that this is a country founded on genocide and
Speaker 1: colonialism and it's only continued that America is the scourge
Speaker 1: of the earth, conceived in sin and continuing to sin
Speaker 1: in every engagement we've been involved in a country that
Speaker 1: is unjust demanding a completely radicalized social justice so called
Speaker 1: agenda that would actually hurt the very people ilhan Omar
Speaker 1: claims to speak for, and by the way, her district
Speaker 1: is ranked on any number of measures as one of
Speaker 1: the worst in the country for Black Americans minorities, who
Speaker 1: she claims again to speak for, and her party claims
Speaker 1: to speak for. Someone who believes in overturning our capitalist order,
Speaker 1: free homes for all who need it, socialized medicine, abolish ice,
Speaker 1: so free for all at our borders, no actual freedom
Speaker 1: for American citizens, and the imperiling of our life and whim.
Speaker 1: But again we need to It cannot be emphasized enough
Speaker 1: that on top of the radicalism, and we haven't even
Speaker 1: talked about all of the jew hatred reflected in her
Speaker 1: remarks and her associations and ties, and in spite of
Speaker 1: the alleged criminality associated with the bizarre allegation backed up
Speaker 1: with substantial evidence, and I go in chapter and verse
Speaker 1: an American ingreat to talk about it that she fraudulently
Speaker 1: married her brother, a foreign national, in order to have
Speaker 1: him come over here, get an education, and then leave,
Speaker 1: at which point she reunited with the person with whom
Speaker 1: she had been with for years before and might have
Speaker 1: still been with during the years where she was married
Speaker 1: so called to this foreign national. On top of all
Speaker 1: of the raft of criminality associated with that, and it
Speaker 1: implicates not just marriage fraud and immigration fraud, but also
Speaker 1: student loan fraud as well, so educational fraud with respect
Speaker 1: to the public funding used to get him into school,
Speaker 1: same school she attended, and then perjuring herself in the
Speaker 1: divorce proceedings where she broke off the relationship with this man,
Speaker 1: and then also by the way, tax fraud associated with
Speaker 1: the fact that she filed jointly with her current husband,
Speaker 1: now actually divorced, but the person who she would ultimately marry,
Speaker 1: with whom she had had three children, filing jointly for
Speaker 1: taxes when she was not technically married to him and
Speaker 1: still technically married to this previous person that she had
Speaker 1: allegedly fraudulent, fraudulently married. Leave aside all that craziness for
Speaker 1: a second. Consider that background in context of how powerful
Speaker 1: Omar is not just symbolically but substantively. She was recently
Speaker 1: named the co chair of Democratic front runner Bernie Sanders
Speaker 1: campaign in the pivotal twenty twenty state of Minnesota, along
Speaker 1: with another gem Keith Ellison, the state attorney general whose
Speaker 1: seats she took when she became a member of the House.
Speaker 1: She recently proposed a battery of foreign policy bills that
Speaker 1: Ben Rhodes described as the new progressive baseline. This is
Speaker 1: a foreign policy agenda that is about so called justice, equality, fairness,
Speaker 1: making up for America's sins by appeasement, submission, demilitarizing quote unquote,
Speaker 1: and then, unless we forget this is a member of
Speaker 1: the House who, in spite of her known vario and
Speaker 1: anti semitism, the blame America first positions and siding with
Speaker 1: our adversaries by the way, as I'll get to in
Speaker 1: a moment, and the potentially commising background that would stop
Speaker 1: her from ever being able to get a security clearance
Speaker 1: under normal circumstances, but she doesn't need it because she
Speaker 1: has that House Foreign Affairs Committee seats and as a
Speaker 1: member of Congress, and oh, by the way, Grapple is
Speaker 1: with the most sensitive national security and foreign policy information
Speaker 1: and issues on that committee. She is able to act
Speaker 1: with total impunity while holding those positions because her party
Speaker 1: is effectively condoned her rhetoric and her behavior. And it
Speaker 1: started first when they put her on that committee, powerful committee,
Speaker 1: in what seems like a deal that Speaker Pelosi made
Speaker 1: with Party progressives to appease them by putting her in
Speaker 1: that spot, knowing some of the things that she had
Speaker 1: said about Israel hypnotizing the world in her infamous tweet
Speaker 1: years before, and party officials, by the way, in Minneapolis
Speaker 1: area had warned about this. They were nervous about it.
Speaker 1: They had an intervention with her about it before she
Speaker 1: ever won that House seat. Clearly the intervention didn't work.
Speaker 1: The red lion was when her party refused to censure
Speaker 1: her by name and for her specific comments regarding the
Speaker 1: so called Israel lobby and her invocation of other anti
Speaker 1: Semitic tropes. But again, what it shows is that the
Speaker 1: party has caved to its progressive wing. And if you
Speaker 1: want the clearest example of it, we have Bernie Sanders
Speaker 1: right now as the front runner. But before that note,
Speaker 1: we had impeachment. Can you imagine Nancy Pelosi, under normal circumstances,
Speaker 1: in a world where the squad didn't exist, would have
Speaker 1: pushed for that impeachment. Do you think Gerald Nadwer would
Speaker 1: have been on board. Do you think Elliot Angele would
Speaker 1: would have been on board? Honestly, do you think Adam
Speaker 1: Shift necessarily would have been on board? You probably didn't
Speaker 1: even hear about Adam Shift's name until the last couple
Speaker 1: of years. Why question is why, and the answer is
Speaker 1: because they saw when AOC was elected that any one
Speaker 1: of them could get picked off in a primary. The
Speaker 1: Democratic establishment is terrified. You see it in the effort
Speaker 1: likely to steal a nomination from Bernie Sanders, and we'll
Speaker 1: get to that a little bit later. And you see
Speaker 1: it in the candidates staking out more radically left positions
Speaker 1: than candidates have ever staked out before, pandering to a
Speaker 1: left wing that they had not many of them had
Speaker 1: not fully associated within the past. And you see it
Speaker 1: in the decisions that Spuccre Pelosi has made and some
Speaker 1: of the bills that have been brought to the floor
Speaker 1: in the House. And it is precisely because they fear
Speaker 1: for their political lives, because they know that there are
Speaker 1: many aocs out there, and there are many ilhan Omar's
Speaker 1: out there. So when you see Bernie Sanders embrace in
Speaker 1: ilhan Omar, obviously he's there with her already, but it
Speaker 1: reflects the fact that this progressive poison is ascendant in
Speaker 1: the Democratic Party. And how can a party that represents
Speaker 1: half the country be an anti American party and keep
Speaker 1: this country actually together? What will unite us. At the
Speaker 1: end of the day, it's completely about disunifying the country.
Speaker 1: It's about pitting people against each other. It's why, as
Speaker 1: I go into great depth in this book American Ingrate,
Speaker 1: I talk about Ilhan Omar's intersectionality and politics of identity,
Speaker 1: which is all about dividing us, rubbing raw the sores
Speaker 1: in our society to put us against each other, divide
Speaker 1: us and ultimately take us down. But from their perspective,
Speaker 1: taking us down is bringing us up to another level,
Speaker 1: because in their perverse worldview, bringing America down, putting America second,
Speaker 1: is America first for them, that blame America first ideology.
Speaker 1: For them, the old is the only moral just thing
Speaker 1: to do, because we are the worst country in the
Speaker 1: history of mankind in their view. So at the end
Speaker 1: of the day, why does Congresswoman Omar matter? Why should
Speaker 1: we care about the fact that she has been elevated
Speaker 1: and embraced by her party? And I make the comprehensive
Speaker 1: case in American in Grade that she has indeed been
Speaker 1: embraced by the party because what she represents symbolically and
Speaker 1: her own power substantively is being embraced by the front
Speaker 1: runner of the party. Is where the party is shifting ideologically.
Speaker 1: She's a leading indicator, if not an indicator of the
Speaker 1: fact that the party is already there with her. And
Speaker 1: I will talk about the danger of the fact that
Speaker 1: she is where she is and the party is where
Speaker 1: they are. Just after this break, this has been one
Speaker 1: garden for Buck Sexon on the Buck sex and show
Speaker 1: back just after this you're in the Freedom Hud. This
Speaker 1: is the Buck Sexton Show podcast. Welcome back to the
Speaker 1: Buck Sexon Show. This is Ben Weine Garden in for
Speaker 1: Bucks Sexon and we have been talking about the release
Speaker 1: of my new book. Very excited about it. The reception
Speaker 1: has been exceptional so far. If you hadn't seen Newt
Speaker 1: gang Ridge tweeted about it and said essentially that American
Speaker 1: ingred ilhan Omar and the progressive Islamist takeover of the
Speaker 1: Democratic Party shows exactly where this anti americanism and radicalism
Speaker 1: reflected in Bernie Sanders for example, and by the way,
Speaker 1: many other Democrat candidates refusing to speak at APAC. The
Speaker 1: American Israel Joint Group Bipartisan are arguably a left leaning group. Honestly,
Speaker 1: they won't speak there. In in Bernie's embrace of Castro
Speaker 1: and the Communists. And I appreciate speaker gang Rich making
Speaker 1: that point because it's an essential one that this represents,
Speaker 1: this progressive movement represents anti Americanism. Blame America first, put
Speaker 1: American second, third, not just second to third, put Americans last.
Speaker 1: And as I've argued, a vote for Bernie Sanders is
Speaker 1: a vote for ilan Omar and the ideology she embraces.
Speaker 1: And again that is where the Democratic Party is right
Speaker 1: now with Bernie as the front runner. Now. In terms
Speaker 1: of ilhan Omar's own danger as an individual, I noted
Speaker 1: the alleged criminality, the anti American positions. I also talked
Speaker 1: about the ethics violations, or if I didn't, she has
Speaker 1: had ethics violations with respect to her campaign spending, refuses
Speaker 1: to answer when questioned on almost any of this, and
Speaker 1: then she has all the substantial power that we've talked about.
Speaker 1: Not mentioned is her Islamist collusion, and that is with
Speaker 1: foreign regimes, dignitaries associated with Sunni Islamist groups, her support
Speaker 1: of Shia Islamists. With respect to the Iranian Molocracy, she
Speaker 1: stands with the Iranian Molocracy and its allies against America's
Speaker 1: partners in several of the Sunni Arab states like Saudi
Speaker 1: Arabia and Egypt and Jordan, and of course our key
Speaker 1: partner ally in the region, Israel, who perversely, amazingly, as
Speaker 1: a result of the Obama administration policies, has now ended
Speaker 1: up in a partnership with these countries that before would
Speaker 1: have sought to destroy Israel, an amazing thing, one of
Speaker 1: the only positives of the Obama foreign policy agenda. Miraculously
Speaker 1: this has all transpired and materialized. But ilhan Omar's own
Speaker 1: Islamist collusion, and I had a editorial about this in
Speaker 1: the New York Post this week. I urge you to
Speaker 1: check out just regarding ilhan Omar's ties to Turkey alone,
Speaker 1: and the jumping off point for this, and actually the
Speaker 1: jumping off point for the whole book was at a
Speaker 1: picture surface of ilhan Omar as a state representative in
Speaker 1: twenty seventeen meeting with Turkish President er Towan on the
Speaker 1: sidelines of the UN General Assembly in New York. So
Speaker 1: the first question you have to ask is why the
Speaker 1: heck is air to one meeting with a state representative
Speaker 1: from Minnesota on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly,
Speaker 1: and the reporting very scant and often foreign language on
Speaker 1: that meeting shows that they were talking about Turkish Somalia
Speaker 1: relations of all things, which is bizarre. Omar, a native
Speaker 1: of Somalia, has maintained incredibly close ties to a Somali
Speaker 1: regime that is one of the most corrupted in the world.
Speaker 1: It's a Shariah based regime. It's a constitution talks about
Speaker 1: social justice and Shariah, which fits in perfectly with Ilhan.
Speaker 1: Omar's associations with all manner of Islamist and her pro
Speaker 1: Islamic identity combined with her progressivism, and she has talked
Speaker 1: about her views of Islam and Islam itself being a ideology,
Speaker 1: a theopolitical ideology that fits with this social justice milieu
Speaker 1: as well. I go into great length to talk about
Speaker 1: her ties and several meetings that she's had with senior
Speaker 1: Turkish officials, including Ardwan, her taking fifteen hundred dollars from
Speaker 1: a man reported to be er Towan's cousin who lobbies
Speaker 1: through a Turkish group against things like, for example, the
Speaker 1: recent House resolution to recognize the Armadian genocide perpetrated by
Speaker 1: the Ottoman Turks, which the Turkish government hates terrible pr
Speaker 1: for them, so she takes fifteen hundred dollars from him.
Speaker 1: She meets with all of these officials fifteen hundred dollars
Speaker 1: in campaign contributions, that is, meets with all these Turkish officials,
Speaker 1: says she's going to say nice things about Turkey, has
Speaker 1: said nice things about Turkey and context in particular of
Speaker 1: Turkey helping Somalia, which again, what is a US representative,
Speaker 1: Why does she have a stake in this? What is
Speaker 1: her equity in that issue? She is one of the
Speaker 1: only people not to vote to censure or rather to
Speaker 1: recognize the Armadian genocide as being perpetrated by the Ottoman Turks.
Speaker 1: And then she also votes against sanctions on Turkey. There's
Speaker 1: a person who loves sanctions when it comes to Israel,
Speaker 1: and she's tweeted BDS Saudi BDS Saudi Arabia before, but
Speaker 1: then she goes out she votes against sanctions on Turkey
Speaker 1: over their incursion into Northern Syria against the Kurds, and
Speaker 1: that was overwhelmingly bipartisan support for those sanctions, just like
Speaker 1: there was overwhelming bipartisan support for that aforementioned resolution. She
Speaker 1: takes Turkey's side on those issues, and then she writes
Speaker 1: in the Washington Post about how she's really against sanctions
Speaker 1: when it comes to Turkey. They're detrimental, they hurt people,
Speaker 1: They're all these terrible humanitarian knock on effects, but completely
Speaker 1: silent on how she squares that with her support of
Speaker 1: the terror tied BDS movement against Israel. That's just Turkey.
Speaker 1: But I document at great length in this book Elanomer's
Speaker 1: ties again to Somali leaders, some of whom are terror tied,
Speaker 1: certainly corrupt her own husband in law serving in that
Speaker 1: regime ultimately. And then her affiliations with all manner of
Speaker 1: anti American, anti Israeli radical groups and individuals in the US,
Speaker 1: including care which of course was an unindicted co conspirator
Speaker 1: in the largest terrorism financing case dealing with Hamas in
Speaker 1: US history. And these ties are legion And we are
Speaker 1: talking about her speaking in front of these groups, her
Speaker 1: appearing pictured with these individuals, working with these individuals on
Speaker 1: any number of issues in Congress, her taking money from them,
Speaker 1: campaign contributions to the tune of over twenty thousand dollars
Speaker 1: from Islamist linked individuals, and that was only as of
Speaker 1: last year. You put all this together, and she represents
Speaker 1: the personification of what I deem the Progressive Islamist Alliance
Speaker 1: or axis, and it is jew hatred that is the
Speaker 1: glue that holds that intersectionalist alliance together as representative of
Speaker 1: ultimately hatred for Judaeo Christian Western civilization. And that at
Speaker 1: core is the importance of this book. It is about
Speaker 1: a war on us. So I urge you to pick
Speaker 1: up American Ingrate, ilhan Omar and the Progressive Islamist take
Speaker 1: Over the Democratic Party. Tweet out a picture of it,
Speaker 1: be happy to sign copies. This has been wandering in
Speaker 1: for Buck sex And on the Buck Sex and Show,
Speaker 1: and we'll be back just after this. Thanks for listening
Speaker 1: to the Bus Sex and Show podcasts. Remember to subscribe
Speaker 1: on Apple Podcasts, the iHeartRadio app, or where you get
Speaker 1: your podcasts. Welcome back to the Buck Sexton Show. This
Speaker 1: is Ben wine Garden in for Buck Sexton, and we
Speaker 1: open today's show by talking about coronavirus and in particular
Speaker 1: what the implications are and what it tells us about
Speaker 1: the ruling Chinese Communist Party, which, as I've argued at length,
Speaker 1: is the number one threat to American liberty engaged in
Speaker 1: a whole of government comprehensive strategy to become not just
Speaker 1: a regional hegemon, but the world hegemon as well as
Speaker 1: the impact on America and frankly, the catastrophic consequences to
Speaker 1: the extent we are going to politicize a potential pandemic
Speaker 1: that we're just going to tear ourselves apart as a country, which,
Speaker 1: by the way, of course, is what all of our
Speaker 1: adversaries love. In some ways, it's almost providing a lifeline
Speaker 1: to the Chinese Communist Party because when you consider the coronavirus,
Speaker 1: after the quote unquote trade war that they have endured
Speaker 1: under the Trump administration, after what transpired in Hong Kong,
Speaker 1: they've had a lot of losses over the past few years,
Speaker 1: and the coronavirus, of course, is having massive economic consequences.
Speaker 1: You have all manner of Western businesses shutting down operations there.
Speaker 1: We've already seen the shift of supply chains, which I
Speaker 1: think is a welcome development and which President Trump himself
Speaker 1: has encouraged in tweets and statements in the past. But
Speaker 1: it ought to be noted that there are other dimensions
Speaker 1: to this competition as well, and the threat posed by
Speaker 1: the Chinese Communist Party has not receded, even though it
Speaker 1: has substantial problems right now as a consequence both of
Speaker 1: this emerging potential global pandemic as well as the consequences
Speaker 1: of the so called trade war that has transpired to date.
Speaker 1: And this is an area that I think again is
Speaker 1: the seminal contribution on the foreign policy side of the
Speaker 1: Trump administration, which has been the reorientation of US national
Speaker 1: security and foreign policy towards the Chinese Communist Party. And
Speaker 1: in spite of how critical I have been on this
Speaker 1: show in the past, of a politicized law enforcement, particular
Speaker 1: at its most senior levels, abusing the spy apparatus, the
Speaker 1: intelligence apparatus, weaponizing and politicizing it in a bid to
Speaker 1: not just undermine the Trump administration agenda, but really ultimately
Speaker 1: as an attack on us, we the people who voted
Speaker 1: for it and who voted to overturn establishment policy and
Speaker 1: again focus on America first, on China. There has been
Speaker 1: an amazing sort of bipartisan realization that the status quo
Speaker 1: is untenable, unsustainable, and does pose a great risk ultimately,
Speaker 1: and we're not fully there, as you see with Mike Bloomberg,
Speaker 1: for example, who won't call she dictator and says he
Speaker 1: has to answer to his constituents, when his constituents are
Speaker 1: other people in the Chinese Communist Party who threatened his power.
Speaker 1: At the end of the day, it's laughable. And of
Speaker 1: course many of these candidates directly or indirectly have had
Speaker 1: commercial financial ties to China in the past as well,
Speaker 1: so disastrous on that count. But there has been a realization,
Speaker 1: I think, and I think it's pretty well documented in
Speaker 1: the highest reaches of the US government and even on
Speaker 1: a bipartisan basis to some degree, with the likes of
Speaker 1: even Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi, a realization that we
Speaker 1: have given China the world since we've opened that relationship,
Speaker 1: and at every single point of crisis, we as a
Speaker 1: nation have really caved to them. Probably the best example
Speaker 1: of this, the most horrendous example of this being in
Speaker 1: the wake of TMMN Square, when the Chinese Communist Party
Speaker 1: engaged in a disaster and we essentially let them off
Speaker 1: the hook and said the status quo will continue, and
Speaker 1: we have enabled the Chinese Communist Party to get rich,
Speaker 1: and they've thanked us by continuing to steal our crown jewels,
Speaker 1: threatening today our Navy for example, in the region, and
Speaker 1: of course seeking to dominate the world with five G technology,
Speaker 1: as we'll talk about shortway with my next guest, David Goldman.
Speaker 1: But it does bear noting the actions and the words
Speaker 1: that Trump administration officials have taken, and again I say
Speaker 1: that in particular in the realms of national security and
Speaker 1: foreign policy. And I'd urge you to draw your attention
Speaker 1: to a few recent actions which demonstrate that even if
Speaker 1: there was a Phase one trade deal with the Chinese
Speaker 1: Communist Party, the Trump administration is as ego by it
Speaker 1: as ever in terms of continuing to counter the Chinese
Speaker 1: Communist Party with a whole of government strategy. And there
Speaker 1: have been a few speeches delivered recently that I urge
Speaker 1: you to read in full because it just represents a
Speaker 1: remarkable sea change in you s foreign policy, in particular
Speaker 1: from Attorney General William Barr Bill Barr, as well as
Speaker 1: Secretary of State Pompeo, and bears noting that just a
Speaker 1: couple of weeks ago, the Department of Justice unveiled a
Speaker 1: nine count indictment in which it alleged that four members
Speaker 1: of the PLA that's the Chinese Army Research Institute hacked
Speaker 1: Equifax's computer networks, stealing sensitive information including names, birthday, social
Speaker 1: security numbers of almost one hundred and fifty million Americans
Speaker 1: that's almost half the country in other words, and driver's
Speaker 1: licensed numbers from ten million or more Americans. And these
Speaker 1: PLA officers were also charged with engaging in economic espionage
Speaker 1: and a raft of other crimes as well. That's a
Speaker 1: remarkable thing that that indictment was revealed, because in the past,
Speaker 1: the US would have never engaged in an operation to
Speaker 1: prosecute PLA TIEDE officials, let alone PLA officials themselves. What
Speaker 1: Barr said was, for years, we have witnessed China's veracious
Speaker 1: appetite for the personal data of Americans, including the theft
Speaker 1: of personal records from the US Office of Personnel Management,
Speaker 1: which we've talked about talked about at length of the show,
Speaker 1: the intrusion into Marriott Hotels and Anthem Health Insurance Company,
Speaker 1: and now the whole sealth theft of credit and other
Speaker 1: information from Equifax. This data has economic value, and these
Speaker 1: thefts can feed China's development of artificial intelligence tools as
Speaker 1: well as the creation of intelligence targeting packages. And what
Speaker 1: Bar has overseen at the Department of Justice is a
Speaker 1: China initiative that has led to a number of public
Speaker 1: actions charging individuals and entities for crimes relating to everything
Speaker 1: from the infiltration of US academic and research institutions and
Speaker 1: strategically significant and sensitive areas, to charging people with committing
Speaker 1: espionage on behalf of the Chinese government, trafficking and counterfeit
Speaker 1: goods which steals millions, if not billions of dollars ultimately
Speaker 1: in wealth from Americans over time, the illegal importation of
Speaker 1: goods manufactured in China, and numerous trade theft cases, as
Speaker 1: well as, of course, actions against the telecommunications giant and
Speaker 1: central player in China's grand strategy, Whawei, the behemoth, the
Speaker 1: crown jewel for the Chinese Communist Party in their effort
Speaker 1: to be the dominant world power. So i'd urge you
Speaker 1: to read Attorney General Bar's speech at the CSIS think Tank,
Speaker 1: as well as a speech delivered by Secretary of State
Speaker 1: Pompeo to governors in which he talked about the Chinese
Speaker 1: Communist Party's targeting of American political officials, including governors around
Speaker 1: the country. Next, We're going to have an in depth
Speaker 1: conversation with a China watcher par excellence, an expert when
Speaker 1: it comes to Huawei in specifically and the Chinese Communist
Speaker 1: Party and its grand strategy generally. David Goldman, this has
Speaker 1: been one going in for Buck Sexton on the Buck
Speaker 1: Sexton Show. We'll be back with David Goldman just after this.
Speaker 1: You're in the Freedom Hunt. This is the Buck Sexton
Speaker 1: Show podcast. Welcome back to the Buck Sexton Show. This
Speaker 1: is Ben Weinegarden in for Buck sexon and we've been
Speaker 1: talking about as we always do, for about an hour
Speaker 1: when filling in for Buck Sex and the pivotal foreign
Speaker 1: threat of our time to our liberty as Americans, that
Speaker 1: of the Chinese Communist Party. And one of the shrewdest
Speaker 1: and most knowledgeable China watchers out there is my next guest,
Speaker 1: David Goldman, known as Spengler, where he writes for the
Speaker 1: Asia Times. He also contributes frequently to PJ Media and
Speaker 1: also I'm proud to report and happy to report has
Speaker 1: a book coming out later this year regarding some of
Speaker 1: our topics today on Huawei in particular, You will be assimilated. David,
Speaker 1: thanks so much for coming on the program. Bran, thanks
Speaker 1: so much for having it's a great pleasure. So first
Speaker 1: I should say, you work in financial markets in addition
Speaker 1: to all your writing, and we've seen financial markets essentially
Speaker 1: tank in the West during this last week in large
Speaker 1: part and I hate when financial watchers attribute market movements
Speaker 1: to one or two particular events, but in this case,
Speaker 1: I do think it is safe to say in response
Speaker 1: to coronavirus and government responses to coronavirus. So first, I
Speaker 1: just wonder if you'd give us your general take on
Speaker 1: what has transpired and where do you think this is going,
Speaker 1: both for China and the US. The point at which
Speaker 1: the markets went bananas is when Korea and Japan and
Speaker 1: Italy showed a very large number of cases. The rate
Speaker 1: of spread of the virus outside of China became significantly
Speaker 1: greater than the rate inside China itself. China is a
Speaker 1: detallature in surveillance state. If you go by an aspirin
Speaker 1: and you're not on the quarantine list in the city
Speaker 1: like Uha, the police will come and give you a
Speaker 1: test for COVID nineteen to make sure you're nottivating quarantine.
Speaker 1: So the Chinese have had the capacity to locked down
Speaker 1: gigantic members of the population isolated a city of thirteen
Speaker 1: million people. Very hard to do in the West, and
Speaker 1: the rate of infection in China has level dwelt, but
Speaker 1: outside China much harder to control. So with Japanese schools
Speaker 1: shut down, with a Japanese island of Hokaido quarantined at home,
Speaker 1: with lower a thousand cases in Korea, and rapid spread
Speaker 1: in Italy, nobody knows what kind of damned this will inflict,
Speaker 1: and also what kind of political problems it will dredge
Speaker 1: up in its way. God forbid that Bernie Sanders becomes
Speaker 1: president of the United States. But if you have a
Speaker 1: sufficient crisis like this, obviously it increases the chances of
Speaker 1: something terrible like that happening. So the degree of uncertainty
Speaker 1: is so great about this that it spooked the market.
Speaker 1: I think the market has gone much too far, by
Speaker 1: the way. Personally, I've been buying certain stocks this morning,
Speaker 1: and I'm comfortable that we're not going to have anything
Speaker 1: like the two thousand and eight crash. Totally different situation.
Speaker 1: Not very worried, but I do think it would be
Speaker 1: appropriate for saying emergency tax cuts and similar to spending
Speaker 1: to come from the major governments as a way of
Speaker 1: timing the economy over getting over the hump as we
Speaker 1: learned to double the virus. And it's worth noting also
Speaker 1: that there was a report I believe from the Jerusalem
Speaker 1: Post last night that is an Israeli company was supposedly
Speaker 1: within weeks away from developing a virus to handle coronavirus,
Speaker 1: so potentially vaccine. Yes, yes, that's true, but it's very
Speaker 1: unlikely that any vaccine is going to have a measurable
Speaker 1: impact in the rise in the several months that we'll
Speaker 1: worry about. Now. Sure, I want to transition to something
Speaker 1: that we've discussed on this program atlant on numerous occasions,
Speaker 1: and that is China's Grand strategy. It's focus in particular
Speaker 1: on being a dominant player in technology and networking and
Speaker 1: information technology in particular. And so we'll start very narrow
Speaker 1: to get to a broader question, which is how does
Speaker 1: fit into China's grand strategy. Walway is an entirely unique
Speaker 1: development in five thousand years of Chinese history. I can't
Speaker 1: overestimate how important it is. For the first time China
Speaker 1: has managed to enlist the towns of ten to thousands,
Speaker 1: so some of the best Western engineers and scientists. It
Speaker 1: is not a Chinese company. It is an imperial company
Speaker 1: in which the Chinese Empire has put into harness many
Speaker 1: of the best minds in the West. For example, we
Speaker 1: are very cross with Boris Johnson, the Prime Minister of England,
Speaker 1: for allowing Wali to build out part of Britain's five
Speaker 1: G network, and the American officials seem to be shocked
Speaker 1: by this decision. They could have seen it coming. Ten
Speaker 1: years ago. Two eleven, Wali hired the Chief Information Officer
Speaker 1: of Her Majesty's government, John Suffolk. Two and twelve Wali
Speaker 1: anounced that was going to spread two billion dollars around
Speaker 1: in England in the form of research grants, laboratories, R
Speaker 1: and D, all kinds of things. They have bought their
Speaker 1: way into every university department, every startup, every lab that
Speaker 1: has anything to do with telecommunications. They've hardwired the British
Speaker 1: scientific establishment into their project, and they've been doing it
Speaker 1: in public view, bragging about it openly for more than
Speaker 1: nine years. So the extent to which China has linked
Speaker 1: itself into the scientific contento, large school lead and key
Speaker 1: parts of the corporate sector in Western Europe and of
Speaker 1: course Russia, obviously Southeast Asia is up to the Chinese
Speaker 1: have never attempted before, they ever done before. Now they
Speaker 1: have a juggernail which is extremely hard to stop, and
Speaker 1: it can't be stopped us by scolding our allies working
Speaker 1: with you've written some very interesting stories regarding your experiences
Speaker 1: touring Wahwei facilities. Of course under the close watch, I'm
Speaker 1: sure of their handwears. Meeting with Huawei officials, officers, regular
Speaker 1: workers there. Can you share some of your insights that
Speaker 1: you think are most pertinent regarding those visits. I became
Speaker 1: aware of this by stumbling into the manhole, so to speak.
Speaker 1: I'm the forest gump analyst here. I just happened to
Speaker 1: be there at the right time. Four years ago, I
Speaker 1: was working as an adjustment banker for a little boutique
Speaker 1: in Hong Kong and we wanted to get Walwe's business.
Speaker 1: Nobody was objecting to it then it wasn't on the radar,
Speaker 1: so I introduced them to the government of Mexico, where
Speaker 1: by the way, Walwi is now building Mexico's national broadband system,
Speaker 1: including five G. I'm the American border. You don't hear
Speaker 1: a lot of talk about that, but it was something
Speaker 1: of an accomplishment. So I took the Mexican ambassador to
Speaker 1: Chi to Huawei headquarters in Shenzen and we went through
Speaker 1: the exhibition hall of their technologies, which looks like ten
Speaker 1: air and space museums in the National Mall. It's an
Speaker 1: incredible place. And afterwards they sat the Mexican delegation down
Speaker 1: in a little amphitheater, and a fellow from while they
Speaker 1: came up with a power point and said, you are
Speaker 1: a big country. You have bad broadband. Bad broadband means
Speaker 1: you are poor. We will make you rich. You can
Speaker 1: become rich like China. Let us come in and build
Speaker 1: a national broadband network. Then we bring in Chinese e commerce,
Speaker 1: we bring in Chinese e finals. When we bring in
Speaker 1: Chinese technology, you will become like China. Sounded like the board.
Speaker 1: You will be assimilated. And Mexicans are just stunned. The
Speaker 1: massador said, how long have you been doing this? The
Speaker 1: Chinese guy kind of looked at his watch and said, oh,
Speaker 1: I don't know, seven or eight years. And their mouths
Speaker 1: are on the floor now. Of course they are doing it.
Speaker 1: So what China wants to do is not just spin
Speaker 1: and spy on our information flows or steal our secrets.
Speaker 1: That's so nineties. What China wants to do is become
Speaker 1: the dominant force in the world economy and use its
Speaker 1: control of broadband to layer in all the new technologies.
Speaker 1: Go to de find a twenty first century artificial intelligence,
Speaker 1: automated manufacturing, autonomous vehicles, remote control surgery, medical diagnostics, or
Speaker 1: artificial intelligence via the cloud, and all of this is public.
Speaker 1: You can go to Wawei's website and watch their confidence
Speaker 1: speeches on this and streaming video. You can read their
Speaker 1: profiles for transforming the technological capability of every country in
Speaker 1: the world. They've got a little profile of a hundred
Speaker 1: countries and what they want to do to them. This
Speaker 1: is a plan for China to be de transformative factor
Speaker 1: in the Fourth Industrial Revolution and the dominant power in
Speaker 1: the world economy. So it'd be fair to say that
Speaker 1: in this case, the communists are selling us the rope
Speaker 1: with which to hang us. Well, I mean, it's a
Speaker 1: communist I've met more communists in Cambridge, Massachusetts than I
Speaker 1: have in China. This is if it were just communists.
Speaker 1: Ben and I fight with all of my conservative friends
Speaker 1: about this all the time. Communistry idiots. Communism isn't that
Speaker 1: became a wasn't It's a stupid idea. The Chinese are
Speaker 1: the embodiment of the old Mandarin meritocracy which has ruled
Speaker 1: China for twenty five hundred years. They just happened to
Speaker 1: be called to communist party. We're dealing with a five
Speaker 1: thousand year old empire that's curious, pragmatic, energetic, brutal and
Speaker 1: ruthless and has now woken up from five thousand years
Speaker 1: of slumber, looked at the world and said this looks
Speaker 1: appetized into us. Why don't we take it. We're speaking
Speaker 1: with David Goldman here and we'll continue this conversation right
Speaker 1: after the break. This is Ben Weingarten in for Buck
Speaker 1: Sexon on the Buck Sexon Show. Back just after this.
Speaker 1: Thanks for listening to the bus Sex and Show podcasts.
Speaker 1: Remember to subscribe on Apple Podcasts, the iHeartRadio app, or
Speaker 1: wherever you get your podcasts. Welcome back to the Buck
Speaker 1: Sexton Show. This is Ben Weingarten in for Buck Sexton,
Speaker 1: and I want to continue this conversation with David Goldman.
Speaker 1: He's known as Spangler for Asia Times. He writes at
Speaker 1: PJ Media and elsewhere, and as I noted previously, is
Speaker 1: one of the shrewdest China watchers. There is, and we've
Speaker 1: been talking about Whawei as a seminal player in the
Speaker 1: Chinese Communist Party's grand strategy to be the dominant world power.
Speaker 1: And that brings us naturally, naturally to the question of
Speaker 1: how far behind is America and why have we failed
Speaker 1: to date to counter the CCP in this endeavor. Well,
Speaker 1: see our technol companies bend. It's not so much that
Speaker 1: they're rearranging the decktures and the Titanic. It's more like
Speaker 1: their sealing and the the silver spoons from the dining room.
Speaker 1: They've had a twenty year freide where they figured out
Speaker 1: that if they invest in software, which is infinitely scalable,
Speaker 1: marginal costs of adding a customer, zero, huge rates of
Speaker 1: return in equity, they don't have to do the dirty
Speaker 1: and lower return job of building the hardware. Let they
Speaker 1: contract that out to the Asians. Not simply China, of course,
Speaker 1: it's a Japan, Vietnam, Taiwan, of course, South Korea. It's
Speaker 1: all the same model. The Asians subsidize chip fabrication plants
Speaker 1: the way we subsidize sports stadiums or airports. So the
Speaker 1: US tech sector instead of investing in physics, hardware, changing nature,
Speaker 1: high tech manufacturing concentrated exclusively on software. Cisco, for example,
Speaker 1: use through the dominant telecommunication equipment company in the world.
Speaker 1: They've moved almost entirely out of hark Or. They're a
Speaker 1: software company. They've got a return in equity of thirty
Speaker 1: five percent. At breakfast stows a few months ago with
Speaker 1: a senior guy from WAWE, and he said, we don't
Speaker 1: understand you Americans. If you were worried about us, why
Speaker 1: didn't you just have Cisco by Ericson. That's the big
Speaker 1: Swedish telecommunications company and the closest to a competitor that
Speaker 1: WAWE has. Have Cisco by Ericsson and create a national
Speaker 1: champion that competes with us. And I told the Walwe guy, well,
Speaker 1: it's real simple. Cisco as a return of equity of
Speaker 1: thirty five percent. Ericson had a return of equity last
Speaker 1: year of about zero. So Cisco stock price would go down,
Speaker 1: and we don't do anything that doesn't boost stock prices.
Speaker 1: That's simple. So we've been entirely focused on shareholder value
Speaker 1: and going for the quickest buck without thinking about long
Speaker 1: term consequences. Whereas a Chinese have been digging in and
Speaker 1: building the infrastructure to dominate not just five detelecommunications, but
Speaker 1: all the many manufacturing, mining, retail, finance, shipping applications that
Speaker 1: come often so in just a couple of minutes. And
Speaker 1: I know it's difficult to condense it or distill it.
Speaker 1: You've argued in effect, if not directly, for a national
Speaker 1: industrial policy, and free marketeers will of course fear the
Speaker 1: government and private sector working hand in hand, legitimate fears
Speaker 1: in many cases, but of course we're dealing with an
Speaker 1: existential threat here. Or they'll argue that the government directing
Speaker 1: projects in space like telecommunications will lead to all of
Speaker 1: the problems that we know tend to come from central planning.
Speaker 1: So what is your response to them? And then what
Speaker 1: does your whole of government plan look like. All those
Speaker 1: objections are valid, and the best way to avoid them
Speaker 1: is do what we did under the Reggae devestation, where
Speaker 1: we were spending the equivalent in today's dollars at three
Speaker 1: hundred billion dollars a year in basic scientific research. We
Speaker 1: contract out to the big corporate labs which don't exist anymore,
Speaker 1: to look into all kinds of things, out of which
Speaker 1: we got chief and fast semiconductors, the semiconductor laser optical networks,
Speaker 1: the Internet itself. Virtually everything that went into the digital
Speaker 1: age came out of a basic science grant from the
Speaker 1: Defense Department, but we let private companies raise money and
Speaker 1: take the risk of commercializing the inventions. So I think
Speaker 1: we need to work our way back up to that
Speaker 1: three hundred billion dollars a year level, about a point
Speaker 1: and a half of GDP of subsidies for basic research.
Speaker 1: We need to train more engineers to get there. We
Speaker 1: need to train more scientists, We need to persuade the
Speaker 1: corporations that used to have these giant industrial labs to rebuild.
Speaker 1: And it's absolute we could do overnight, but we need
Speaker 1: to go backs of the kind of things we did
Speaker 1: and won the Cold War under Reagan, who was of
Speaker 1: course a great free marketer and did not allow the
Speaker 1: private sector for the most part, to exploit government subsidies,
Speaker 1: which is what many of my free market colleagues worry about,
Speaker 1: as do I. We've been speaking with David Goldman. I
Speaker 1: urge you to read everything you can that he writes,
Speaker 1: and he is a book coming out later this year
Speaker 1: on many of the topics we've just spoken about that.
Speaker 1: It will be titled You Will be Assimilated. David, thank
Speaker 1: you so much for coming on the program. Ben, thanks
Speaker 1: so much for having me. And this is Ben Winegarden
Speaker 1: in for Buck sex In here on the Buck Sex
Speaker 1: and Show. Back just after this you're in the Freedom Hud.
Speaker 1: This is the Buck Sexton Show podcast. Welcome back to
Speaker 1: the Buck Sex and Show. This is Ben Weingarten in
Speaker 1: for Buck Sexton and with my last guest, we talked
Speaker 1: about the threat posed by the Chinese Communist Party. But
Speaker 1: as I've talked about on numerous occasions a show, ultimately
Speaker 1: America has the capability to grapple with any foreign adversary,
Speaker 1: almost any challenge we could possibly face externally. The greater
Speaker 1: challenge that we have is do we have the will
Speaker 1: and do we have the internal strength the cohesion. Are
Speaker 1: we united enough to grapple with not just those external
Speaker 1: problems but the internal problems that we are facing today.
Speaker 1: And a couple of those core problems are one the
Speaker 1: collapse of the family and two and relatedly in many respects,
Speaker 1: just the horrid shape that our education system is in,
Speaker 1: something that our adversaries a certain way themselves taken advantage
Speaker 1: of and one of the keenest experts on the state
Speaker 1: of our education system where it's headed, where we are
Speaker 1: today is Joy Pullman, who is my colleague, the executive
Speaker 1: editor of the Federal Issues, written an ebook recommending more
Speaker 1: than four hundred classic books for family was with young children,
Speaker 1: which I urge you to take a look at. And
Speaker 1: she's also the author of The Education Invasion, How Common
Speaker 1: Core Fights parents for control of American Kids, a book
Speaker 1: that I actually interviewed Joy on in the past, and
Speaker 1: she wrote a great piece at the Federalists recently where
Speaker 1: she talked about an exchange on Morning Joe which implicated
Speaker 1: the whitewashing of Bernie Sanders's communist coddling. So with that background, Joy,
Speaker 1: tell us about that exchange and your thoughts on it. Well,
Speaker 1: it seems, you know, look, it wasn't a big deal,
Speaker 1: but it kind of underscores a lot of things that
Speaker 1: are the service, kind of like a tip of the
Speaker 1: iceberg sort of thing. So I think it was Wednesday
Speaker 1: morning on Joe Scarborough show on MSNBC Morning Joe, he
Speaker 1: and a guest were talking about you know, Scarborough has
Speaker 1: been public about his concerns about socialism and communism, and
Speaker 1: Bernie Sanders potentially becoming the Democratic nominee label is one
Speaker 1: of those. So even though he is obviously a leftist,
Speaker 1: Scarborough isn't willing to go as far as to label
Speaker 1: the ideas you know, socialism or communism. So he and
Speaker 1: his number There are a number of panelists, but the
Speaker 1: one he had this exchange with was a fellow from
Speaker 1: Princeton University Eddie and I don't know if I'm probably
Speaker 1: not going to pronounce his name well, but Gaudi Gaude anyway,
Speaker 1: so what they you know, the fellow was seemed to be,
Speaker 1: you know, kind of advocating for Bernard Standers, and one
Speaker 1: of the things that he said was, you know a
Speaker 1: lot you know Americans. He didn't think that Bernie's comments
Speaker 1: supporting socialist dictator Fidel Castro Cuba was necessarily a bad
Speaker 1: thing because he noted that a number of Americans think
Speaker 1: that America is basically an imperialist, colonialist power. And Scarborough said, okay,
Speaker 1: well that's two percent of Americans for the other ninety
Speaker 1: eight percent, how does this work? Well, but what I
Speaker 1: want on to talk about in the article is how
Speaker 1: actually that's not two percent of Americans. You know, depending
Speaker 1: on the question that you're asking and you know, and
Speaker 1: the poll that you're looking at, something between thirty and
Speaker 1: forty percent of Americans, and especially higher percentages of young
Speaker 1: people will agree. I mean half of you know, half
Speaker 1: of Americans will agree that with the statement that America
Speaker 1: is a racist and a sexist country. You know, thirty
Speaker 1: to forty percent of especially young people will agree. The
Speaker 1: United States, you know, it shouldn't be proud of its history.
Speaker 1: United States wasn't great and never will be. A twenty
Speaker 1: percent of them said young people that America will never
Speaker 1: be great. You know. So again, some of these are
Speaker 1: minority numbers, that they are very sizeable minority numbers, and
Speaker 1: it's a shocking how big that is, and that obviously
Speaker 1: has grown across time, this negative view of people, you know,
Speaker 1: of American Again, I think America definitely comes in for
Speaker 1: criticism and a number of things that we've done corporately politically,
Speaker 1: I think we still do now. I mean, we're overseeing
Speaker 1: what I consider to be mass genocide with our laws
Speaker 1: about abortion. You know. So definitely think that America can
Speaker 1: be criticized, but that doesn't mean that I hate America.
Speaker 1: And the growth of really negative opinions among Americans, especially
Speaker 1: given that we know that the growth, that growth is
Speaker 1: fed by public tax dollars, public education institutions. Attacking the
Speaker 1: very nation that feeds them, that supports them, that sustains them.
Speaker 1: That is a new and it's very troubling thing for
Speaker 1: the future of this country. And I have to have
Speaker 1: a little tie in here to my book American ingrids
Speaker 1: ilhan Omer and the Progressive Islamist take over the Democratic Party, because,
Speaker 1: as I note in that book, while she was raised
Speaker 1: herself in a Marxist Islamist dictatorship in Somalia in the
Speaker 1: early years of her life, and her family served that regime,
Speaker 1: she could have gotten the same anti American ideas there,
Speaker 1: like the ones you just described to imperialist colonialist occupying power,
Speaker 1: just as easily from Somalia as in the encove that
Speaker 1: she lived in in Minneapolis. That is a really scary
Speaker 1: concept to consider, and it begs the question, how did
Speaker 1: the American education system become anti American? Well, I mean
Speaker 1: it's taken a long time. You know something people are
Speaker 1: familiar probably with the phrase the long march through the institutions,
Speaker 1: But I mean part of it just is that the
Speaker 1: left deliberately targeted cultural institutions, one of the chief ones
Speaker 1: of which is education. And quite frankly, people on the right,
Speaker 1: conservatives and even people who wouldn't call themselves political conservatives
Speaker 1: but are kind of dispositionally moderate or conservative, they we
Speaker 1: haven't put it up. We haven't put up a fight.
Speaker 1: You know. Really the left has been the aggressors in
Speaker 1: this case, and you know, they keep pushing and coashing
Speaker 1: and keep pushing, and it's I don't think it has
Speaker 1: dawned fast enough on Americans a of all what they're doing,
Speaker 1: and be the consequences of it, and then you know,
Speaker 1: maybe to add a C there. Therefore, you our response
Speaker 1: has just been extremely lacking. You know, we we have
Speaker 1: known about problems like this for at least the past
Speaker 1: fifty two one hundred years. You know, I've done you know,
Speaker 1: some search about the history of American education politics, and
Speaker 1: you know, so this has been evident from the beginning,
Speaker 1: and Americans have been complacent, particularly our political leaders on
Speaker 1: the right have done way too much, you know, trying
Speaker 1: to be moderates, trying to be partisan. And while they
Speaker 1: have you know, basically done that, you know, the you know,
Speaker 1: the schools have been transformed under their feet into agents
Speaker 1: you know, that really turn Americans against their own country.
Speaker 1: And I mean, I think that's completely outrageous. There's no
Speaker 1: point in a conflict country can exist. You know, if
Speaker 1: we are literally teaching people to hate the country. You know,
Speaker 1: that is educating them and in many cases clothing and
Speaker 1: feeding them and housing them in school. You know, schooling
Speaker 1: them is you know, we just can't continue as a
Speaker 1: country if we're going to allow our own institutions to
Speaker 1: attack our existence. Only a country that has it really
Speaker 1: good on a relative and absolute basis could have the
Speaker 1: time or the sort of narcissistic self loathing that we
Speaker 1: do to have these great institutions and then seek to
Speaker 1: tarnish them. It really is a remarkable thing. Do you
Speaker 1: think there's something in the American psyche that is just
Speaker 1: broken at this point? Well? I do, Actually, I mean,
Speaker 1: I think it's a Western thing. Self criticism is something
Speaker 1: that the West says that you don't see to the
Speaker 1: same extent in for example, the Eastern you know kind
Speaker 1: of heritage. So I mean, and I think there is legitimacy. Again,
Speaker 1: there is something that makes it can be a strength
Speaker 1: to criticize yourself to notice your flaws and seek to
Speaker 1: correct them. I mean, the America most maybe the most
Speaker 1: notably did that, you know, with the Civil War and
Speaker 1: a civil rights movement. Sure we had a flaw, and
Speaker 1: you know, we worked to fix it and that needed
Speaker 1: to happen. So there are absolutely positive things that come
Speaker 1: from that. But there's also, you know, a point where
Speaker 1: it goes too far, you know, where you say that
Speaker 1: because America has done things, therefore all the good things
Speaker 1: are negated or we can't notice them or talk about
Speaker 1: them too or put the evil things in context. And
Speaker 1: that really is what education ought to be. I don't
Speaker 1: advocate for education is indoctrination from a conservative point of view,
Speaker 1: I want people to know the truth, and you know,
Speaker 1: they're left instead of presenting people all of the facts
Speaker 1: in the whole context and doing that as a developmentally
Speaker 1: appropriate time. I mean, I have not shown my preschoolers,
Speaker 1: you know, pictures of whipped American slaves, right, but that
Speaker 1: is a historical fact that people need to see perhaps
Speaker 1: at some point. I haven't brought my babies to the
Speaker 1: American Holocaust Museum, but I've been there, and I think
Speaker 1: Americans should go there, right, you know, So that process
Speaker 1: of education needs to be done wisely in it, but
Speaker 1: it needs to have the whole truth. And too many
Speaker 1: times and too often, especially nowadays, American kids are not
Speaker 1: given the whole truth, and that colors their worldview and
Speaker 1: and and I think really what needs to happen is
Speaker 1: we need the American kids need to start with a
Speaker 1: disposition to love and have affection for their country, and
Speaker 1: then from that orientation then they learn how to criticize it,
Speaker 1: just like within a family, right, And you know, we
Speaker 1: all have families and we all mostly love them, but
Speaker 1: we're also free to criticize our families, right. But you
Speaker 1: do that from wanting your family to be better, you know,
Speaker 1: and so rather than hating your family and wanting to
Speaker 1: destroy it. So what Criticizing out of love and criticizing
Speaker 1: out of hatred are two completely different things and only
Speaker 1: one of them is the one that the left tries
Speaker 1: to do typically. Today, Well, we're up against a break
Speaker 1: in about a minute and a half or so. But
Speaker 1: before we hit that break, I wanted to ask. I've
Speaker 1: seen a book for toddlers titled A is for Activism
Speaker 1: and for every letter of the alphabet, it's just it's
Speaker 1: beyond parody in some ways, but the fact that this
Speaker 1: is really in bookstores is remarkable. And then as you
Speaker 1: go up the grade levels, you have Howard Jin's people's history.
Speaker 1: Now we have the sixteen nineteen project pervading many school
Speaker 1: districts throughout the country. Is there any competition from our
Speaker 1: side to the left's content continued along March through the
Speaker 1: institution of the Academy, There is very very little. There
Speaker 1: is some, there are some very tiny, you know, less
Speaker 1: than I think one or two percent of the country
Speaker 1: has access to private school choice programs. Republicans have really
Speaker 1: I mean, they play talk a big game, but they
Speaker 1: do not act a big game when it comes to
Speaker 1: jeffreying parents. I mean the plurality of parents. So that is,
Speaker 1: you know, the largest group of parents, something around forty
Speaker 1: five percent want to send their kids to a private school,
Speaker 1: but only ten percent of American parents do that, right,
Speaker 1: So huge mismatch between what Americans want and what they're getting.
Speaker 1: And Republicans have really dropped the ball on making sure
Speaker 1: they can access that. And so, I mean, and the
Speaker 1: right has completely I mean, I just wish this weren't true,
Speaker 1: but it is true. Has ignored the fact that education
Speaker 1: and family is crucial. Maybe you know the bet that
Speaker 1: plus religion, I would say, you know, in terms of
Speaker 1: the culture cultural impact, those three things are the chief ones,
Speaker 1: and the right has a very poor game on at
Speaker 1: least two of them. And we are losing the country
Speaker 1: because of it. And if we don't start getting with
Speaker 1: the program and taking I think we should have a boycott, divestment,
Speaker 1: sactions movement for Marxist education. We need to not send
Speaker 1: taxpayer dollars or support or put public names on any
Speaker 1: education institution that attacks, you know, the country that gives
Speaker 1: it money and gives it children. We'll be back with
Speaker 1: more with Joy Pullman just after this. Thanks for listening
Speaker 1: to the bus X and Show podcasts. Remember to subscribe
Speaker 1: on Apple podcast, the iHeart Radio app, or wherever you
Speaker 1: get your podcasts. Welcome back to the Buck Sex and Show.
Speaker 1: This is Ben Weingarten in for Bucksex In and before
Speaker 1: the break we were talking with Joy Pullman about the
Speaker 1: Long March through the Institutions, which, by the way, the
Speaker 1: Long March, the origins of it start in part with
Speaker 1: Antonio gramscy leftist Italian official who ideologue, rather I should
Speaker 1: say who espouse this sort of view of taking over
Speaker 1: through cultural institutions to ultimately impact everything else. And it
Speaker 1: bears noting that former Mayor Pepodijj's father was the world's
Speaker 1: foremost expert on gram sheet, So if you think he's
Speaker 1: the moderate in their party, you might want to think
Speaker 1: again about that. Joy was just talking before the break
Speaker 1: about the challenges that we face both in academia and
Speaker 1: outside of academia as well, and I think it dovetails
Speaker 1: with something that I talk about at length in my
Speaker 1: book American Ingrate about the decline and religiosity, devotion to
Speaker 1: building families, and also love of country among in particular
Speaker 1: younger generations. What do you think the link is, Joy,
Speaker 1: between what is transpired in our education system and the
Speaker 1: declines in all of these essential areas well. It's really
Speaker 1: hard to I mean, I think it's that's almost you know,
Speaker 1: chicken or the egg question. It's hard to say, you
Speaker 1: know what came first, families getting you know, becoming a mess,
Speaker 1: or school is becoming a mess. I would probably say,
Speaker 1: you know, families becoming a mess, right, because I mean,
Speaker 1: I know a lot of teachers and they will uniformly
Speaker 1: tell you, you know, we have to deal with so
Speaker 1: much stuff, so much personal stuff, that it's really hard
Speaker 1: to make way for the business of education. And you know,
Speaker 1: the family is the place that sets the child's first
Speaker 1: loves and and orient you know, his kind of direction
Speaker 1: in the world. And a lot of families, you know.
Speaker 1: I mean, actually this happened to me when I became
Speaker 1: a parent. I wasn't aware of how explicit I need
Speaker 1: to be in order to teach my children to behave
Speaker 1: the way that I want them to behave. I saw,
Speaker 1: you know, a lot of the things the kids would
Speaker 1: just pick up or get through osmosis. And I was wrong,
Speaker 1: even about simple things like how to play with toys,
Speaker 1: you know, and of course discipline things, but also of
Speaker 1: course with um you know, these these ideas of the heart,
Speaker 1: you know, these orientation short of the world, what to
Speaker 1: love and how to love it. Kids need to be
Speaker 1: explicitly and openly taught that. And that, in fact is
Speaker 1: something again that the left tends to do better than
Speaker 1: the right. Right they openly propagandies they're kids, like you
Speaker 1: were saying with this little board book about a for activists.
Speaker 1: I mean, I think that's a ridiculous thing to teach
Speaker 1: a child. But at least the left gets that little
Speaker 1: children need to hear the most important things right away
Speaker 1: when they're too you know, have it on their lips,
Speaker 1: you know, just I mean, you know, I was so.
Speaker 1: For example, the school my kids go to as a classical,
Speaker 1: private Christian school, and the very five six year old
Speaker 1: kids are memorizing the First Amendment. They don't know what
Speaker 1: the First Amendment means, but it is going to be.
Speaker 1: It's in their heart. They have taught that it's something
Speaker 1: that is valuable, used as a valuable class time, and
Speaker 1: it is something that the school comes back to over
Speaker 1: the years and it deepens and deepens in their heart,
Speaker 1: and it becomes a part of who they are. And
Speaker 1: you know, I think the First Amendment, you know, and
Speaker 1: these things like scripture versus and hands, they're much much
Speaker 1: more valuable and worthy of a child's mind and attention,
Speaker 1: you know, than ridiculous activist board books about ridiculous political causes. Right,
Speaker 1: for me, politics is a lot as secondary to these
Speaker 1: deeper and transcendent things. And you know, but but again,
Speaker 1: typically the people on the righteous we don't think. And again,
Speaker 1: like I said, I've been guilty of this as a
Speaker 1: parent myself, haven't thought about the fact that that explicitly
Speaker 1: that it's not going to happen by osmosis. The kids
Speaker 1: need to be actively enculturated. They need to be actively
Speaker 1: taught what is good and what is wrong, and it
Speaker 1: has to be completely saturating their entire life. And we
Speaker 1: can't just assume that someone else is going to do it.
Speaker 1: We have to do it ourselves, and we have to
Speaker 1: make sure that it is happening. And as the fact
Speaker 1: that we haven't done that is the reason. You know
Speaker 1: that kids' minds are so empty and available for propaganda today.
Speaker 1: And you've written extensively about education policy in context of
Speaker 1: common core and beyond. Practically, what would be sort of
Speaker 1: your three point plan for restoring a love of country
Speaker 1: and a knowledge of our core institutions and our real
Speaker 1: actual history. I mean, I think, first of all, eliminate
Speaker 1: the US Department of Education. You know, the federal government
Speaker 1: takes ten cents on the dollar of all the money
Speaker 1: given to public schools and controls with it the other
Speaker 1: ninety percent. And it is a bureaucratic institution that is
Speaker 1: anti as an institution, is anti American, anti freedom, anti
Speaker 1: parental choice. The more we can do to cut down
Speaker 1: its power, its influence, in its reach. The better you know,
Speaker 1: states will be able to be set free to be
Speaker 1: more responsive to parents and localities. And the second thing
Speaker 1: at the state level is, you know, state Republicans have
Speaker 1: got to get to get the parents really need to
Speaker 1: have real school choice there. They need to be able
Speaker 1: to be completely in control of the money that is
Speaker 1: spent on behalf of their kids and needs to not
Speaker 1: be able to, you know, to be accessed and controlled
Speaker 1: by special interests who obviously don't have America's best interest
Speaker 1: at heart. So those, you know, those are the very
Speaker 1: first two things. Those are political things. But I think
Speaker 1: the third thing is, you know, parents, conservative donors, people
Speaker 1: who vote in Republican primaries. We need to start prioritizing
Speaker 1: education as an a crucial thing for the future of
Speaker 1: our country. You know, the party doesn't matter so much
Speaker 1: to me. It only matters in terms of you know,
Speaker 1: it helps that the country is made better because I
Speaker 1: believe an idea is stronger and our ideas are not
Speaker 1: going to be as easily sown and among a rocky
Speaker 1: ground of minds that have been taught to hate America,
Speaker 1: to think that it's an inherently sexist and racist and
Speaker 1: don't know a dang thing about the Constitution or the
Speaker 1: founders or all the things that they went through that
Speaker 1: do make our country great. So the people people on
Speaker 1: the right need to stop treating education like you know,
Speaker 1: it's it's not a priority, that it's just a side
Speaker 1: issue or it's a local issue. They need to be
Speaker 1: tackling this head on and being extremely serious about not
Speaker 1: sending taxpayer funds and American children to tuitions that are
Speaker 1: controlled by leftists. Last question, and one need not be
Speaker 1: conspiratorial to sort of follow this line of thinking. It's
Speaker 1: very clear that there has been a dumbing down in
Speaker 1: our education system combined with indoctrination. You also have the
Speaker 1: heavy subsidization of higher education through the federal government, and
Speaker 1: then you have, as a consequence, all of these people
Speaker 1: with massive student debt. They sort of start their careers
Speaker 1: behind many of them and obviously this can be cliched,
Speaker 1: but study things in college that do not lead them
Speaker 1: to be productive in the private sector, and so then
Speaker 1: you have them economically hobbled and ultimately dependent on government.
Speaker 1: Do you see the linkage between those points? Oh? Absolutely,
Speaker 1: and yeah, if I were a conspiracy theorist, which I
Speaker 1: try to interpret what happens in light of the best
Speaker 1: available explanation, the most positive one. But if I were
Speaker 1: or a theorist, I would say that was deliberately done,
Speaker 1: you know, because people who I mean, I mean and
Speaker 1: the American founders talked about this explicitly, and they put
Speaker 1: it into our founding dot documents such as the Northwest Ordinance.
Speaker 1: They said that our system of government cannot continue to
Speaker 1: endure it with an ignorant people. If you are stupid
Speaker 1: and you're dependent, you cannot run your own life. So
Speaker 1: we need to have, you know, an economy and education,
Speaker 1: system of culture that focuses on self reliance. And so
Speaker 1: that requires a certain way of being, certain habits of behavior,
Speaker 1: and frankly, you know, government not preying upon people and
Speaker 1: locking them into that scenario you you describe that makes
Speaker 1: them automatically dependent, you know, when they are just starting
Speaker 1: out in their life. We've been speaking with the Joy Pullman.
Speaker 1: She wrote a great piece of The Federalist recently titled
Speaker 1: Dear Joe Scarborough, More Americans hate America than you think. Joy,
Speaker 1: thanks so much for coming on the program. Well, thank you,
Speaker 1: And this has Ben Weinardon in for Buck Sex and
Speaker 1: on the Buck Sex and show back after this You're
Speaker 1: in the Freedom Hunt. This is the Buck Sexton Show podcast.
Speaker 1: Welcome back to the Buck Sexton Show. This is Ben
Speaker 1: Weingarten in for Buck Sexton. We just talked at Wayne
Speaker 1: with my federalist colleague Joy Pullman about the perversion, the
Speaker 1: corruption of our education system and the knock on effects
Speaker 1: of that. Really not focused on enough in terms of
Speaker 1: what are the actual what are our biggest weaknesses as
Speaker 1: a country faced with all manner of foreign adversaries, any
Speaker 1: number of challenges that every country has to deal with.
Speaker 1: But at core, the people are the strength of the country,
Speaker 1: and America remains by far the strongest world power. We
Speaker 1: have intellectual capital, we have the technology, we have the firepower,
Speaker 1: but do we have the will? And the way you
Speaker 1: break the will if you believe that America's strengths are
Speaker 1: actually its weaknesses or they ought to be turned into weaknesses,
Speaker 1: is you start with indoctrinating generations of people in an
Speaker 1: anti American ideology, and that is at core one of
Speaker 1: the major major parts of American ingrate. Ilhan Omar and
Speaker 1: the progressive islam As takeover of the Democratic Party. She
Speaker 1: is a consequence of it. A person like Ilhan Omar
Speaker 1: could never get elected in another era of America. Couldn't happen.
Speaker 1: And yet, as I noted, and I write at length
Speaker 1: in the book, and I've explained this in interviews elsewhere,
Speaker 1: and we talked about her a bit here, she could
Speaker 1: have just as easily gotten these ideas here in the
Speaker 1: America's heartland as in Mogadishu, sam in Minneapolis as Mogadishu.
Speaker 1: That is a remarkable commentary on the state of where
Speaker 1: America is now. Of course, that's not even getting into
Speaker 1: the consequences of our academic system that has led to
Speaker 1: a situation where they're oponents of open borders, and where
Speaker 1: we would have allowed this massive influx of Somali immigrants
Speaker 1: harboring the kind of ideas that elan Omar does in
Speaker 1: the first place, from a country, by the way, that,
Speaker 1: as I noted, was a Marxist Islamist dictatorship and today,
Speaker 1: and as it's been for the last decade, ranked consistently
Speaker 1: as the most corrupt country in the world. And oh,
Speaker 1: by the way, in terms of the refugees who were
Speaker 1: settled here, rates based on some studies of upwards of
Speaker 1: eighty percent fraud in terms of immigrants coming here who
Speaker 1: started in Somalia. And we see these knock on effects
Speaker 1: of the dominance of progressivism not just in the academy,
Speaker 1: but then ultimately in all of our institutions, even in
Speaker 1: the business world. And we talked at length in a
Speaker 1: prior episode about Woke Capital and how Blackrock, the world's
Speaker 1: largest asset manager, was starting to infuse not just the
Speaker 1: rhetoric of the company, but even it's investing positions or
Speaker 1: the positions that lets clients invest in through black Rock
Speaker 1: be impacted by a progressive worldview, in particular on the
Speaker 1: matter of climate change, but even beyond that, because basically
Speaker 1: there's been a massive shift in the corporate world, among
Speaker 1: especially the elites that run the largest companies in the world,
Speaker 1: towards a different view as to what the purpose of
Speaker 1: a company is now among these people who naturally many
Speaker 1: of these executives came out of our elite schools dominated
Speaker 1: by progressivism, indoctrinated in that milieu, operating in the same
Speaker 1: world at the cocktail parties the attend, and where they
Speaker 1: send their kids to school with other parents who have
Speaker 1: the same worldview. These companies now believe that they have
Speaker 1: a job of activism. It's not just a turn of profit.
Speaker 1: It's not just to reward their shareholders and their other stakeholders.
Speaker 1: It is to be political. Actors use their corporate power
Speaker 1: to impose upon us their views. Sometimes it's explicit, sometimes
Speaker 1: it's a little bit more implicit, and they express it
Speaker 1: in ways like we will not allow you to through
Speaker 1: our vehicle invest in, say coal producing coal sector companies,
Speaker 1: non clean energies, we won't touch them for the way.
Speaker 1: This example of this another financial institution, and this was
Speaker 1: reported by Daniel Horowitz at Conservative Review. Recently, he writes
Speaker 1: an article JP Morgan Chase joins the war on America's
Speaker 1: energy and he starts JP Morgan Chase has decided that
Speaker 1: it's better for the company to join the progressive environmental
Speaker 1: gods than to continue supporting the great American energy miracle
Speaker 1: that has brought so much prosperity, stability, and job creation
Speaker 1: to this country. Has the left finally won the war
Speaker 1: for the heart and soul of corporate America. During the
Speaker 1: company's annual investor Day on Tuesday of this week, the
Speaker 1: Giant Bank announced it would no longer be financing loans
Speaker 1: for oil and gas drilling in the Arctic, and would
Speaker 1: divest from its financing coal plants or mines. It also
Speaker 1: announced it would be divesting from any company that gets
Speaker 1: the majority of its revenue from coal by twenty twenty four.
Speaker 1: When the left camp went at the ballot box or
Speaker 1: in a democratic debate in legislators, it seeks recourse through
Speaker 1: the courts or even better, the culture and markets. In
Speaker 1: this case, groups like Rainforest Action Network bullied the bank
Speaker 1: into submission publishing reports showing JP Morgan Chase to be
Speaker 1: the single biggest lender to the oil and gas industry. Now,
Speaker 1: of course companies are most concerned with they're not most
Speaker 1: concerned with, but a chief concern is their reputation. You're
Speaker 1: only as good as your reputation, and they hate being
Speaker 1: attacked by activist groups and will do anything to essentially
Speaker 1: pay for protection, and that may be literally paying for
Speaker 1: protection in the way of investing in things that these
Speaker 1: activists demand of them. Are conversely not investing in things
Speaker 1: that activists demanded them. So this article goes on. At
Speaker 1: Tuesday's announcement, JP Morgan committed to investing in two hundred
Speaker 1: billion dollars, say, paying for protection in two hundred billion
Speaker 1: dollars worth of projects and support of the United Nations
Speaker 1: sustainable development goals. That is, the company's credential in the
Speaker 1: elite world that will make its profits kosher. Sort of
Speaker 1: an extortion that the progressives make companies pays the cost
Speaker 1: of doing business in a political system they control. However,
Speaker 1: it is never enough for the leftist anarchists who are
Speaker 1: now demanding the Bank also pull out of financing drilling
Speaker 1: in the lower forty eight states as well. And then
Speaker 1: Horowitz goes on to note that it's truly hard to
Speaker 1: overstate the economic miracle that oil and gas drilling as
Speaker 1: ushered into our job market. We have now become the
Speaker 1: global superpower of oil and gas production and exports, by
Speaker 1: the way, against all of these progressives, in the face
Speaker 1: of them, in spite of Obama's own anti energy agenda,
Speaker 1: because fracking, thank god, proliferated during that time, to the
Speaker 1: point that even the conflict with I ran in January
Speaker 1: did not cause a spike in energy prices at all.
Speaker 1: These woke corporate executives are willing to destroy essential parts
Speaker 1: of our economy if it comes to it to try
Speaker 1: to appease an unappeasable progressive mass. And now, as I've
Speaker 1: argued in the past, there are likely government incentives that
Speaker 1: make it such that it is profitable for them to
Speaker 1: do this. But ultimately, we, the American people, suffer if
Speaker 1: we're going to destroy the energy sector because financial institutions
Speaker 1: won't channel money into these very productive areas that, by
Speaker 1: the way, don't just help create jobs for Americans, create
Speaker 1: wealth for Americans, but also make it such that we
Speaker 1: don't need to be reliant upon, in some cases, our
Speaker 1: worst adversaries. So if there is some sort of crisis
Speaker 1: in the Middle East, it doesn't tank our economy. Woke
Speaker 1: capital is incredibly detrimental to America. And what is even
Speaker 1: scarier is a report that recently claim came out from
Speaker 1: Real Clear Politics. They did a poll of about twenty
Speaker 1: five hundred registered voters and they ask them this question,
Speaker 1: which of the following comes closer to your view? The
Speaker 1: purpose of a corporation is to maximize financial returns for shareholders,
Speaker 1: but also to over value to customers, invest in employees,
Speaker 1: deal ethnically with suppliers, and support the communities where they work.
Speaker 1: Here's another response. Potentially single purpose of a corporation is
Speaker 1: to maximize financial returns for shareholders, and then the other
Speaker 1: answers don't know. Seventy seven percent of respondents responded with
Speaker 1: that first answer, that a corporation as all of these
Speaker 1: other required goals besides producing a good or service that
Speaker 1: people want to buy such that they are profitable. Do
Speaker 1: we want businesses operating on the basis of politics? And
Speaker 1: is there any way that doesn't end up corrupted ultimately
Speaker 1: when you have progressives in power, businesses taking progressive positions,
Speaker 1: and of course private public so caught partnerships between them.
Speaker 1: And what does it mean when you have companies that
Speaker 1: are basically going to shut out or piss off fifty
Speaker 1: percent of the country on any given issue. Is that
Speaker 1: where we want to be? Is that where we want
Speaker 1: to be in our civil society? Or do we want
Speaker 1: to be a live in wet lives society where people
Speaker 1: have freedom to choose where they go and companies aren't
Speaker 1: constantly imposing their own ideologies on their customers. This has
Speaker 1: been one gern in for Buck Sexon on the Buck
Speaker 1: Sexton Show, Fight against will Capital all you can We're
Speaker 1: back right after this. Thanks for listening to the bus
Speaker 1: Sex and show podcasts. Remember to subscribe on Apple podcast,
Speaker 1: the iHeart Radio app, or wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 1: Welcome back to the Buck Sexton Show. This is Ben
Speaker 1: Weingarten in for Buck Sexton, and we have had plenty
Speaker 1: of gloom and doom in today's episode. Talked to edwyanth
Speaker 1: about Congresswoman Ilhan Omar, and I believe that a person
Speaker 1: who is the perfect corrective or foil talan Omar in
Speaker 1: many respects is the Supreme Court justice that I most admire.
Speaker 1: I think a generational Supreme Court justice, and that's Justice
Speaker 1: Clarence Thomas. And I am so pleased to be joined
Speaker 1: today by someone who I think agrees, Michael Pack. He's
Speaker 1: the president of Manifold Productions and independent film and television
Speaker 1: production company and the producer of the new documentary Exceptional
Speaker 1: Documentary Created Equal Clarence Thomas in his own words, which
Speaker 1: you can find out all about at Justice thomasmovie dot com.
Speaker 1: Mister Pack, thanks so much for joining us, and thank
Speaker 1: you for having me on the show. Ben. So let's
Speaker 1: jump right in. Justice Thomas, as I noted, is in
Speaker 1: my view, the greatest jurist of this generation and one
Speaker 1: of the ways the Left likes to savage him is
Speaker 1: to harp on the fact that he doesn't typically ask
Speaker 1: questions of those presenting arguments at the Supreme Court. So
Speaker 1: I think your documentary created equal Clarence Thomas in his
Speaker 1: own words is an interesting response to that? Was that intentional? Well,
Speaker 1: that's right, they say, because he doesn't speak in an argument,
Speaker 1: that he's not acting the court, he's not smart, he's
Speaker 1: not articulate, But quite the opposite is true. I mean,
Speaker 1: he's very acting the court and has been since the beginning.
Speaker 1: Especially he's written over six hundred opinions, thirty percent more
Speaker 1: than any other Supreme Court justice, including Justice Ginsburg. So
Speaker 1: he's very active, and he's a great storyteller. And so
Speaker 1: in fact, we fashioned the documentary so that he can
Speaker 1: look right at the audience and tell them what is
Speaker 1: very dramatic, eventful, and I think inspiring life is like
Speaker 1: without filters, really, And I think that's another way that
Speaker 1: he's minimized by the Left in his enemies is downplaying
Speaker 1: the drama of his story. And our film tries to
Speaker 1: do that correct that. And you documented with vivid imagery
Speaker 1: and as you noted, storytelling without giving away too much
Speaker 1: of the plot. Our listeners may well know that Justice
Speaker 1: Thomas grew up poor in many ways, filled with anger,
Speaker 1: but also imbued with many of the traits bestowed upon
Speaker 1: him or inculcated in him by his grandfather, traits that
Speaker 1: we'd probably today ascribe to conservatism, even though back then
Speaker 1: they were just traditional. It seems like ultimately those character
Speaker 1: traits sort of sort of shine through and were reflected
Speaker 1: in Justice Thomas's politics. But before he got to the
Speaker 1: Justice that we see today, he was sort of a
Speaker 1: leftist radical. What changed him, Well, that's right, I mean,
Speaker 1: it's important to go back to the part, the earlier
Speaker 1: part of the story that you alluded to to understand
Speaker 1: what changed him. As you say, he grew up first
Speaker 1: in dire poverty. He was born in Pinpoint, a gull
Speaker 1: Of speaking area outside of Savannah, and his father left
Speaker 1: before he could remember. So his mother, though, brought him
Speaker 1: and his brother when he was about six to Savannah,
Speaker 1: and he had there experienced dire poverty in the jim
Speaker 1: Crow South, something it's hard pressed almost imagine today. Didn't
Speaker 1: have enough to eat cold in the winter, and after
Speaker 1: a couple of years of this, his mother, realizing she
Speaker 1: couldn't take care of her two boys, brought them to
Speaker 1: her father, his grandfather, to raise, and as you said,
Speaker 1: that was where he got his values. His grandfather believed
Speaker 1: in hard work, working from son to son, no excuses,
Speaker 1: and he had converted to Catholicism and sent Justice Thomas
Speaker 1: and his brother to Catholic schools then segregated by run
Speaker 1: by Irish nuns who loved the boys and gave them
Speaker 1: a good education and solid values. And then he did
Speaker 1: reject that for it well, rather before he did. He
Speaker 1: succeeded in that environment and decided he wanted to become
Speaker 1: a priest and went to the seminary and other seminaries,
Speaker 1: unlike his earlier schooling, had been all white and were
Speaker 1: just desegregating. And it was there that he first experienced
Speaker 1: racism really and it reached a peak for him in
Speaker 1: nineteen sixty eight when he was watching TV the day
Speaker 1: that Martin Luther King Jr. Was shot, and one of
Speaker 1: the white seminary and said, I hope that son of
Speaker 1: a bitch dies, and that shocking comment capped off just
Speaker 1: as Thomas is feeling that the church wasn't doing enough
Speaker 1: for civil rights, and then he just slipped. He became
Speaker 1: an angry black man. He decided to want to be
Speaker 1: a priest. He told his grandfather, who kicked him out
Speaker 1: of the house, and that's what began his radical period.
Speaker 1: And he had to go wherever he could, and he
Speaker 1: had a full scholarship at holy Cross and his radicalism
Speaker 1: continued there. He upstart the Black Student Union. They invited
Speaker 1: black panthers to speak. He supported, as he says, anyone
Speaker 1: who was in your face, from Stokely Carmichael to Malcolm X.
Speaker 1: And it was only by sort of hitting a kind
Speaker 1: of bottom that he started to come back to get
Speaker 1: back to your question. Then he participated in an anti
Speaker 1: war rally in a nearby Cambridge that became a near riot,
Speaker 1: and he felt himself getting swept up in the madness
Speaker 1: of the crowd, the hysteria of the crowd out, and
Speaker 1: he was scared by what he had become. And when
Speaker 1: he returned to holy Cross well after midnight, he went
Speaker 1: in front of the chapel then closed, and he had
Speaker 1: never had prayed in a long time, and then he
Speaker 1: prayed and asked God, if you will take anger out
Speaker 1: of my heart, I will never hate again. And that
Speaker 1: was his beginning of his coming back to his spiritual
Speaker 1: values and what he thought of as the political views
Speaker 1: as well of his grandfather. That as you say, we
Speaker 1: may think of today's as conservative, but we're really fundamental
Speaker 1: kind of common sense values of both his grandfather and
Speaker 1: a lot of people in that period. But he did
Speaker 1: have a series of experiences both through college and law
Speaker 1: school and later that made that were the milestones and
Speaker 1: his political journey back. And he finally the first Republican
Speaker 1: he voted for was Ronald Reagan in nineteen eighty in
Speaker 1: and then went to work in the Reagan ad ministry. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it's probably worth noting that the fact that he turned
Speaker 1: on his fellow radicals, it's probably one of the reasons
Speaker 1: he's most reviled today by the predominant American left. What
Speaker 1: did you discover in making this documentary about Justice Clarence
Speaker 1: Thomas that you never knew about him, or that our
Speaker 1: audience might not know about him. I didn't know that
Speaker 1: much before I began, But I think the thing that
Speaker 1: stands out to me most is his resilience through his life,
Speaker 1: surviving and overcoming many obstacles, including one that happened later
Speaker 1: in the story than we said so far. You know,
Speaker 1: the attacks on him the Benita Hill part of his
Speaker 1: confirmation battle, but also the growing up in the difficult
Speaker 1: way he did. He had great resilience and he refused
Speaker 1: to define himself as a victim. I mean, that's what
Speaker 1: stands out to me most. He could. He has a
Speaker 1: very good basis to call himself a victim. He grew
Speaker 1: and poverty, he had a single raised by a single
Speaker 1: mother in the jim Coosouth, subject to wheel racism, but
Speaker 1: he won't define himself as a victim. And I think
Speaker 1: that has allowed him to succeed in spite of all
Speaker 1: those difficulties. And I think that's what makes it sorry,
Speaker 1: inspiring and memorable. Yea, what in your view are the
Speaker 1: one or two most pivotal lessons from Justice Clarence Thomas's
Speaker 1: wife that you would like viewers and listeners here to
Speaker 1: take away. I think that not define yourself as a
Speaker 1: victim is a big one. I mean we all are
Speaker 1: tempted that way. I mean, we who are conservatives always
Speaker 1: accused the left of doing it, but we can fall
Speaker 1: into it too, and it's in a way a human
Speaker 1: trap and one that we should avoid. True or not
Speaker 1: it's suffocating to your life. So that's one big lesson.
Speaker 1: And the other lesson is that Justice Thomas stood up
Speaker 1: for his principles against opposition, and I also found that inspiring.
Speaker 1: So I appeal to you our listeners to go see
Speaker 1: the movie. As you said in your intro. They can
Speaker 1: find out about it at Justice thomasmovie dot com, where
Speaker 1: we list where it's playing each week. It plays in
Speaker 1: different theaters. It's been in a hundred so far. But
Speaker 1: if it's not in a theater near your listeners, they
Speaker 1: can sign up on the website. If there's a big
Speaker 1: enough group, we can make a screening happen. So if
Speaker 1: the first step is to go to Justice thomasmovie dot
Speaker 1: com and they can see the trailer and get it
Speaker 1: sense what the film is like, so they want so
Speaker 1: I appealed to them to go, bring their children. I
Speaker 1: think it's aspiring for young people and bring people of
Speaker 1: different political views. I think even if you don't like
Speaker 1: his politics, you should understand Justice Thomas whatever you're you know,
Speaker 1: if you're a liberal or if you disagree with them.
Speaker 1: We've been speaking with Michael Packy's the producer of the
Speaker 1: Exceptional New documentary created equal Clarence Thomas in his own words, Michael,
Speaker 1: before you have to run out on us, want to
Speaker 1: ask one last political question, and that concerns the Broadcasting
Speaker 1: Board of Governors, which is a very significant part of
Speaker 1: the feral government, and that it's engaged essentially in putting
Speaker 1: forth the American message and combating propaganda of our adversaries.
Speaker 1: And it's been reported that you've been tabbed to be
Speaker 1: the CEO of the Broadcasting Board of Governors. Could you
Speaker 1: provide us just a bit of a status update on
Speaker 1: where your nomination is right now? Okay, well, really that's
Speaker 1: a whole other subject subject, a good topic for another broadcast.
Speaker 1: But I have been since it's a new year. I've
Speaker 1: been renominated by the President, and I had already had
Speaker 1: my hearings for the Senate for a relations committee, but
Speaker 1: they're set to vote, so after they committee votes and
Speaker 1: then it goes to the full Senate, and it's been
Speaker 1: a slow process, but who knows, the end could be
Speaker 1: in sight. I think it is a very important position,
Speaker 1: and I'm honored that the President wants me to serve
Speaker 1: in it. We'll look forward to continuing conversation another time,
Speaker 1: but as for today, again the name of the documentary
Speaker 1: has created equal Clarence Thomas in his own words. You
Speaker 1: can find more at Justice Thomas Movie dot com. Michael Pack,
Speaker 1: thanks so much for joining us today. Thank you, Bet.
Speaker 1: And this has Ben one Garden in for Buck sex
Speaker 1: And on the buck Sexton Show. We'll be back just
Speaker 1: after this. You're in the Freedom Hud. This is the
Speaker 1: buck Sexton Show podcast. Welcome back to the Buck Sexton Show.
Speaker 1: This is Ben Winegarden in for Buck Sexton. And we'll
Speaker 1: try to put a tidy bow on what we've discussed
Speaker 1: during the program today. And we started talking about coronavirus,
Speaker 1: what it means for China, what it means for the US,
Speaker 1: and we talked a bit about American ingred at ilhan
Speaker 1: Omar and the progressive Islamist takeover of the Democratic Party.
Speaker 1: My new book that I urge you to pick up,
Speaker 1: as I said before, at least three copies, one for you,
Speaker 1: one for your children, and one to anger a Bernie
Speaker 1: Brow or more seriously, to any of your still rational
Speaker 1: Democratic friends to understand what is coming if a party
Speaker 1: representing fifty percent of the country is dominated by anti American,
Speaker 1: blame America firsters in general, and in particular someone as
Speaker 1: dangerous as ilhan Omar, And as I've argued, a vote
Speaker 1: for Bernie Sanders is a vote for ilhan Omar and
Speaker 1: everything that she embraces ideologically, as well as the actual
Speaker 1: national security threat posed by her own collusion with the
Speaker 1: swamist adversaries, both foreign and domestic terror tied groups and
Speaker 1: individuals sitting on the House Foreign Affairs Committee. And that
Speaker 1: is actually the perfect representation of the ticking time bomb
Speaker 1: that is this ascendant progressive wing of the Democratic Party.
Speaker 1: And the Democratic establishment gets the danger here because they
Speaker 1: understand that perhaps for the majority of Democrats out there,
Speaker 1: the average Democrat voter, and the average Democrat voter, by
Speaker 1: the way, tends to be much older than the woke
Speaker 1: progressives who might be the loudest today and who are
Speaker 1: clearly playing a substantial role in these primaries. But they
Speaker 1: understand that the average Democrat voter is more in the mold,
Speaker 1: at least relatively of a JFK sort of Democrat, a
Speaker 1: Pat moynihan sort of Democrat, than these Democrats than the squad.
Speaker 1: But all the energy in the party resides with its activist, progressive,
Speaker 1: radical anti American wing and so you see that we've
Speaker 1: ended up in a situation where a party that hates
Speaker 1: wealth attacks the wealthy, is behind me too and other
Speaker 1: such movements, the establishments putting all their eggs or some
Speaker 1: of their eggs at least in the Mike Bloomberg basket,
Speaker 1: for example, even though I think he's a terrible candidate
Speaker 1: in terms of having no appeal whatsoever substantive or stylistic,
Speaker 1: well in general, but then also to the key swing
Speaker 1: states that are at play here, and they're going to
Speaker 1: let this billionaire come in and as he said before,
Speaker 1: buy how seats he essentially let slip in that last debate,
Speaker 1: buy a nomination, steal it from a true believer, or
Speaker 1: at the very least help the party with his mass
Speaker 1: of resources, and keep afloat some of these other figures
Speaker 1: directly or indirectly himself, so that the nomination can be
Speaker 1: stolen from Bernie Sanders. And I'm of two minds on this.
Speaker 1: On the one hand, I think Bernie Sanders is maybe
Speaker 1: their most compelling candidate. And for those who think that
Speaker 1: it's going to be a cakewalk if it's Trump versus Sanders,
Speaker 1: I would urge some caution there not because on a
Speaker 1: substantive basis, he should beat Donald Trump in any stretch,
Speaker 1: in any form, it would be cataquismic, absolutely cataquismic to
Speaker 1: the country. But Bernie Sanders is sort of the opposite
Speaker 1: side of the populous coin. And I've argued the very
Speaker 1: simplistic case for Bernie's strength is this, he appears to
Speaker 1: be genuine. He's been consistent on nearly every issue for
Speaker 1: four decades. He's the real deal when it comes to
Speaker 1: his ideology. He takes positions that would be perceived as
Speaker 1: politically suicido, but which resonate with a core on the
Speaker 1: Democratic side. And when you hear people go out there
Speaker 1: and attack him, like James Carville, they're not saying I
Speaker 1: disagree with his ideas. They're saying I think he's politically
Speaker 1: toxic potentially. But they all are ideologically in his direction,
Speaker 1: oriented in his direction. But Bernie is a candidate with
Speaker 1: a message, and he is the right messenger, just as
Speaker 1: Donald Trump was. Content free candidates who try to pander
Speaker 1: and push to try to win over in the Democrats case,
Speaker 1: the woke anti American progressives, they're showing themselves to be
Speaker 1: not the real deal. They're not genuine Bernie is the original,
Speaker 1: genuine article, and a candidate with a message be it's
Speaker 1: a candidate with no message anytime. And that's why I
Speaker 1: think he has a real chance still in their fields,
Speaker 1: even though if he only gets a porality not a majority.
Speaker 1: The party that talks about democracy dying in darkness is
Speaker 1: willing to take away of the nomination from the person
Speaker 1: who gets the most votes. That is what they all
Speaker 1: basically agreed to when every candidate who was asked the question.
Speaker 1: But Bernie said, if you have a porality, that's not
Speaker 1: enough to win our nomination, which means that they're asking
Speaker 1: for a broker convention. And a brokered convention, I believe
Speaker 1: where it's taken away from Bernie would lead to nineteen
Speaker 1: sixty eight catastrophe for Democrats. Literal riots, chaos, violence, tearing
Speaker 1: their party apart. Except the cops will stand down because
Speaker 1: the Democrats do not believe in there being any policing today.
Speaker 1: It will be an embarrassment for them, it will be
Speaker 1: a disaster for the country. But ultimately, I think what
Speaker 1: you're seeing is that there is a real civil war
Speaker 1: for the heart of it, and my book American ingrate
Speaker 1: Ilhan Omar and the Progressive Islamas Takeover of the Democratic
Speaker 1: Party argues that even if the Bernie wing doesn't win
Speaker 1: today or tomorrow, it is destined to win the way
Speaker 1: things are going, and they are empirical and anecdotal reasons
Speaker 1: for it. But what really matters is that it means
Speaker 1: the end of a pro American fifty percent of the
Speaker 1: country representing party, and that's a disaster for the country
Speaker 1: as a whole. This has been Ben Weingarten in for
Speaker 1: Buck Sexon on the Buck Sexton Show. I want to
Speaker 1: thank Buck for the opportunity to fill in for him,
Speaker 1: and I want to thank you for listening and again
Speaker 1: urge you to pick up my new book, American Ingrate.
Speaker 1: Ilhan Omar and the Progressive Islamas Takeover of the Democratic
Speaker 1: Party have a great weekend, and thanks so much for
Speaker 1: joining us.