The Lefts Totalitarian Embrace

welcome to the buck Sexton Show. This is Ben Weinegarten in four buck Sexton, appreciate you taking the time to join me on this beautiful Thursday evening here in New York and truly the last bashion of freedom because, as you may or may not know, the way that freedom is defined in New York today is you can commit a crime with impunity and you're let go the next day. You can commit another crime to let go the next day. We are now in a no cash bail city, so

freedom to commit crimes. If you're a citizen, your freedoms are infringed upon. This is truly the last bastion into Blasio's New York. As I mentioned, this is Ben Winegarden in for Buck Sexton. I filled in several times in the past, but if it's your first time listening in watching on the first welcome, I'm a fellow at the Claremine Institute, a senior contributor at The Federalist. You can follow all my work at Benwegarten dot com, subscribe to

my newsletter at bit dot lee slash BHW News. Tell you a little bit later about my first book, which comes out of the end of February. And this may be an exclusive first I'll be talking about this in any great depth. It's sure to be provocative, and I

know you're going to appreciate this one. All right. So we're in the midst now of a whole bunch of different major debates over national security and foreign policy, this impeachment charade, which I don't even want to talk about, but I feel we do need to talk about it, not because of the specifics, but because of the broader significance. There's some goings on in immigration that you're really not hearing about anywhere else that we have to talk about.

And then, oh, yeah, yesterday the President just signed the Phase one China trade deal, and so today we're going to talk about these topics with what I think are some of the finest minds on these various issues. Coming up just a bit later in this hour, Michael Doran on Iran policy and the Trump Middle East policy more broadway, we'll talk with the great Professor John Eastman about all

things immigration, insanity, and some sanity as well. And then last but not LEAs, we'll also talk with Peter Navarro, Doctor Peter Navarro of the Trump administration, one of the so called hawks on China, to talk about this deal, put it in its greater context, tell us a little bit about some of the details. One of the things we should look for what's being missed in all the coverage, because, as I've talked about in this program before, China is

the greatest threat to our liberty. It is a communist power by definition, and it is not a communist power that is content to just rule its own people with an iron fist. It's hegemonic. It's hegemonic in its ambitions, and not just regionally but globally. And if it'stalitarian power wants to be the dominant world power, necessarily that means it has to shrink our freedom and the freedom of the westmore broadway. So we will get to all that

and much more today. I want to start with the Democrats standing with Russia and China and Iran and hear me out on this and North Korea too. By the way, if you remember when Trump was portrayed as the reckless cowboy, before he was portrayed as the naive isolationist, before he was again portrayed as the reckless cowboy when it comes to Iran, remember Kim Jong un was considered the rational

actor at the table at one point. Why is it, Why is it that the Democrats stand with all of these adversaries and point the finger at us and say we are traders. That really sticks in my craw and it should stick in your craw too, because for the last hundred years, hundred years, Democrats have been the ones appeasing, bribing, coddling, trying to find moderates in the world's worst regimes, those regimes that are truly the most antisocial justice actually just

anti justice, no modifier needed regimes in the world. And I don't know about you, but I'm sick and tired of Nancy Pelosi tweeting out things about Moscow, Mitch mcado, and same thing with her friend. I believe one of the impeachment managers had Keem Jeffreys, Congressman from New York. Some congressmen have said that regardless of what happens with impeachment. They're going to continue pursuing Trump Russia ties and links.

You know, the whole premise of the whole Trump Russia hoax, which was really about trying to take down his presidency through this wedge issue, which, by the way, Hillary Clinton and his team and her team we're talking about within twenty four hours after she lost, As has been documented and reported at length, it is all about saying, this person's a traitor and therefore illegitimate, therefore dangerous, and therefore that justifies us taking the most brazen acts possible to

undermine him, even if it means undermining everything else that the country is based on. I've said of this repeatedly an articles on air. Who is violating the norms, values, and principles and institutions that they tell us are so essential.

It's them who is coddling our worst adversaries. It's them, And we have seen some of the most shameful examples of this in light of following the attack that took out Caseem Solomani, who I always refer to and I think you should refer to him too, as the world's leading terrorists, of the world's leading terror force, of the world's leading terrorist regime that funds, runs, orchestrates everything that is done by this world's leading sponsor of terror in

Iran and its molocracy, and we should separate by the way that regime from the people, some percentage of which are actually out there literally risking their lives because they actually do first for real, genuine freedom, not the freedom that we heard about in Egypt, which was freedom for the Muslim brotherhood to run roughshod over Christians and all

sorts of other ethic minorities and destroy a country. Not the kind of freedom we heard about in all the other Arab spring places where the Arab spring turns to

the Arab winter very quickly. No, in Iran, there actually is some percentage of the populace who, like in nineteen seventy nine pre Islamic revolutionary Iran, actually do yearn for something approximating freedom and actually could be an ally and a partner with America and the Westmore Broadway, I want to go to a couple of clips because some of the things that those on the left have been saying post Solomani are just absolutely insane, And just like with

Nancy Pelosi calling Mitch McConnell Moscow Mitch. And by the way, his preferred name is Cocaine Mitch. He said this so show some respect to the Majority leader, Madam Speaker. And when they talk about the whole Russia collusion, hope you're a trader, even though it's been disproven, even though it's been proven that this was really spygate, not Russia Gate.

Russia was the excuse to spy on an opposing campaign and to weaponize our national security and law enforcement apparatus as part of a long running campaign from before the man was inaugurated to try to take him down. And by the way, before I get to I Ran, let me just say it is the Democrats. It is those who have propagated this Russia Gate, Russia collusion narrative, Russia

treasonous conspiracy narrative. They are doing far more damage to our country than Vladimir Putin or anyone in Russia could ever hope to do to America. And it's sort of the same thing with what we're seeing with what honestly sound like propagandist for the Iranian molocracy of moreaucracy that has been at war with America since nineteen seventy nine. Let's go to quip One. Here's John Kerry talking about Iran.

It's a sad day when the United States, so America, has to rely on the decision of the regime that we neither liked nor trust, to have them be the ones who behaved somehow in a way that saves Donald Trump from his own decision. They have the ones saving

Donald Trump from his own decision. This is a man who literally admitted that Iran Deal the crown jewel of the Obama administration in their second term, non treaty imposed upon the American people, imposed upon the world, which we'll talk about at great length, and we'll talk about why i Ran Deal isn't actually the proper name for the deal because that doesn't describe at all what it did.

It wasn't an Iran nuclear deal. It was fake arms control, actually about propping up the world's leading state sponsor of jihad.

John Kerry really has some nerve here because this is a man who himself has admitted back in twenty seventeen, some of the more than one hundred billion dollars that we release to Iran, and that is comprised of sanctioned relief and all that increased trade active video that Iran got, and when we pulled off all of these sanctions from them, he himself admitted that some of that money obviously would

end up going towards you guessed it, jihad. So John Kerry was totally fine with the US becoming the world's leading state sponsor of the world's leading state sponsor of jihad. So who the hell is he to make this kind of comment? I ran saving him. No, Trump is cleaning up the mess that preceded him in a resovute and a prudent way, in a way that I Ran never expected because we've been bribing them, appeasing them, not calling a spade a spade for decades, and that's under Republicans

and Democrats. By the way, all right, I want to go to another clip. Let's go to EQUIP two. And this is a New York Times reporter. Her name is Rookmena Calamachi, applauding Iran. Let's go to EQUIP two. The perception of America right now, I would say in the Middle East is that we act outside the law. I hear this all the time from iraqis from Syrians who do not see a legal process behind what we are doing, specifically because of the failure of the Iraq War and

the tainted intelligence that led to that point. One of the takeaways of the past week is that we actually saw, in my opinion, Iran act with perhaps more restraint than our own government the rocket attacks, that the missiles that landed on the basis where there were American troops did not kill anyone. That seems like a wise decision that they made. Thankfully, our own government has now backed off as well. Restraint. The Iranian regime is the prudent, sound wise, beneficent.

They didn't act out of restraint. They acted because they knew that if they threatened the life and limb of our soldiers or our assets threatened to destroy them, that a city in Iran would be leveled. Okay, that has not been clear to the Iranian regime. They never expected that from any administration, including this one. They thought they could tap the Trump administration along continue to poke and pride.

All they've been doing is provocations towards the US, our partners and our allies, testing probing, seeing how far could they push before they got any sort of a reaction from America. And what they got was an overwhelming reaction. That destabilized and already wobbling regime. So why did the malocracy respond the way that they did with their tail

between their legs. Because they knew that we pose an existential threat to their existence for the first time in a long time, certainly since the start of the Obama presidency, and frankly arguably since probably decades before that. And there's a case to be made that they are on weaker ground today than they've been in at least a decade,

and potentially far more. We'll talk a little bit about that as we proceed in this first hour, but I want to point out why it is that the Left sides with whoever is an enemy Trump and in this case,

all of our adversaries. It's not just that they hate Trump, and it's not just that they have this naive worldview that all of our worst enemies can be appeased, or at least that that's the better thing to do, that actually confront reality as it is and deal with a complicated world that's full of murderous thugs, that not everyone is by nature necessarily good, that there are people that actually do want to infringe upon our daily life and our freedoms as we've seen time and time again and

that you don't try to appease a bully because that only emboldens that bully. What the Democrats have done is they have an effect aided, a better than enabled, all of our worst adversaries. They are the ones who have so discord in our politics to an unprecedented level. I mean, certainly relative to the Obama years. They have corrupted our system of checks and balances and separated powers and everything from impeachment to the way that leftist judges have gone

about blocking entire administration policies. One random federal judge we'll talk about this a little bit later, can stop clearly lawful presidential policies across the entire country. Think about the

tyranny of that, that judicial supremacy. They have violated the individual liberties of Americans in the way that they've gone about the entire Russia Gate perpetration and then the cover up, which has been in part impeachment in some ways, the so called Mullar Special Council investigation and everything associated with it, the millions of subpoenas that they've issued. They've weaponized our law enforcement mechanism. They've sought to cover up the abuses

of the intelligence apparatus and law enforcement. And they've cheered on an administrative state that's tried to sabotage the president, who gives that administrative state its power. All of these rogue officials and all of these agencies that come out and snipe at the president, they only have power because the presidents delegated it to them. Democrats cheer this on.

Imagine you can't even imagine. You can't conceive of a scenario because there aren't enough conservatives in the administrative state and they would never act this inappropriately. Of course, in the first place, you can't conceive of a scenario where the Obama administration did something and he was sabotaged by rogue conservatives conspiring within the administrative states. It would never happen. It would be laughed out of the room, couldn't even

be conceived of. They are the ones who are trying to purge all dissenting views from public life. And we'll talk about that a little bit later. Anything that dares challenge the progressive orthodoxy, unacceptable voices should be shut out. And why why do they side where their adversaries and why do they in affect Aida bet and enable them with their actions while claiming that we're the traitors and

we're the ones undermining institutions. They think that the America that we understand, that we believe in, that we understand the founders to have crafted for us, built for us. They think that America is inherently evil. It's the scores of the earth. And so if you hate that which is evil, you believe yourself good, then the only way to fix it is to turn it on its head, repudiate all the principles, run rough shot over them, because the ends justify the means for them, and the ends

ultimately are power. It's power for them if they sometimes they say this outright. And some of these comments from these reporters and Obama administration officials praising the Iranians, it reminded me of a New York Times op ed writer Thomas Friedman. Sure you're familiar with his work, he wrote back in September two thousand and nine. Something that sticks with me, it should stick with you two and it

really represents where the left is, he said. One party autocracy certainly has its drawbacks, but when it is led by a reasonably enlightened group of people. As China is today, it can have great advantages. Beijing wants to make sure that it owns that in industries and is ordering policies to do it. Our one part, from the top down,

our one party democracy, quote unquote, is worse. They want they want to rule everything because they don't want us to have a voice, because they disagree with this entire experiment, and they'll undermine it any and every which way they can, including siding with our worst adversaries. This has Ben Winegarden in for Buck Sexon on the Buck Sex and Show. We'll be right back after this. You're in the Freedom Hunt. This is the Buck Sexton Show podcast. Welcome back to

the Buck Sex and Show. This is Ben Weinegarten in four Buck Sexton. We've been talking about the left, siding with our worst adversaries, and a little bit specifically about Iran. And in my next segment, I'm going to interview someone who is, in my view, one of the finest experts on national security and foreign policy generally in the Middle East,

specifically in Iran. I think he's written some of the most prescient, deep probing, insightful pieces on not only what the strike on Solomany means for American national security and foreign policy, but also what it means in context of US Middle East policy more broadly, and where the Trump administration stands on it, because a lot of people, frankly, are hysterical when it comes to anything the Trump administration does, but in particular do not understand that there actually is

a coherent method to all that we've been doing from the Middle East to China, to Western and Eastern Europe and beyond Russia as well. And so we're going to talk with Michael Durant of the Hudson Institute about a

number of these topics. He actually altees this a little bit, has floated that the Obama administration, as I understand it, may have written love letters to Cosseem Solomany and I talk in jest here, but actually did communicy directly potentially with Solomony, and not to deliver the kind of message that the Trump administration did, which is knock it off or else. We'll talk about that right after this. Ben Wangarton in for Buck Sexton on The Buck Sexton Show.

Thanks for listening to The bus Sexton Show podcasts. Remember to subscribe on Apple podcasts. The iHeartRadio app or wherever you get your podcasts. Welcome back to the Buck Sexton Show. This is Ben Wangarton in for Buck Sexton, and we have on the line right now. As I just mentioned, what I think is one of the finest scholars when it comes to national security and foreign policy in the Middle Eastern general and Iran in particular, Mike Duran. He's

a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute. He formerly held positions in both the Department of Defense and on the National Security Council during the George W. Bush administration. Mike, thanks, thanks so much for coming on the program. Thanks for

having me Ben, and thanks for that very generous introduction. Well, it's well deserved and been a longtime fan of your work, and we've discussed many of these issues at length, and I thought bucks Audi deserves to hear from someone who was in a policy making position, who has grappled with the adversaries that we're dealing with today, and in particular, I wanted to start with something that you sort of teased out on Twitter and was later corroborated by Lee Smith,

another great writer on national security and foreign policy. We've had on the program before, were you discussed the fact that a little birdie told you, essentially that the Obama administration had drafted some letters to the world's weading terrorists, of the world's reading terror force, the cuts force, of the world's weading terror regime, of the Iranian molocracy. What else can you tell us about that? Well, actually, I don't know much more than that. It was absolutely a

little birdie. Somebody who I happen to know, and who happened to know is in a position to know this fact firsthand, said Hey, did you know that under the Obama administration we sent letters plural to cause some solo money?

And I said, no, I didn't know that, and it's very interesting, and so I put I put that out on Twitter, you know, so I pretended to be I joked that I was an anonymous whistle blower, the joke being that everyone in Washington, DC knows that Eric Jarmella is the anonymous whistleblower on the Zelinsky conversation that Trump

is being impeached over. And you know, he's been walking around town all since this thing began, and you're not allowed to supposedly, you know, you're not allowed to say his name if you write his name on Twitter, you get deep platformed and uh and so on. I thought, Wow, that's really cool. I'd like to be an anonymous whistle blower too. Uh. You know, people need to walk into restaurants with people point at you and say, hey, there's

the anonymous whistle blower. So I'm I'm anonymous here. I'm not when I talk to you about when I talk to you about the letters to Solo Money, I'm not Mike Duran at the Hudson Institute. I'm anonymous. Okay, I'll neither confirm nor denied that I'm Mike Duran. As long as we're talking about this, well, we'll make sure not to weak your name to the Washington Post and the Times.

And I think it is significant though to the extent they did write letters to Solomony, and it's eminently believable because the administration took the Obama administration took sanctions off of Solomany as part of the so called I Ran

Nuclear Deal in the first place. But it's quite an interesting contrast that they were probably writing letters hoping to come to some sort of agreement or accord with Solomany, whereas the Trump administration secretary Pompeo drafted a letter to Solomany which basically said, knock off the malign activities or else, and the RLS actually happened exactly exactly. I mean, the let's start with the last point first. The letter that Pompeo sent to Solomony, actually he did so on the

instructions of Donald Trump. I noticed for a fact as well. Trump saw something in the intelligence early on in the administration that worried him, and he said, I see that this guy Solimani is organizing to kill Americans. I want to send him a letter, and I want to put him on notice that if he harms the hair on a single American that there will be immediate and drastic consequences.

And I don't know how the decision was made. I guess, you know, maybe his advisor said, actually, mister President, I don't think you should be the one talking to Solomoni. So it fell to Pompeo. And Pompeo's letter was very short and very sweet, and it basically said I don't know the exact wording, but it busically said just what I said, if you harm the hair on one American, that will be held a pain and that's the origin. That's the origin of the of the of the attack

on Solimani. I mean, he was he was warned, and he was warned time and again, and he ignored it and he paid a price for it. And that's the

way it should be. Solomoni is portrayed, and I think accurately so, as sort of the architect of really in some sense that the Shide Crescent and Iran's jihadest activities around the world, and also obviously has the blood of hundreds of Americans on his hands, and orchestrated the attack on our embassy, which is an act of war, and according to the Administration, was planning on orchestrating other ones

as well. How significant is the fact that Solomoni no longer walks the face of the earth from the perspective of destabilizing the Iranian molocracy. Oh, it's enormously significant. This is the single most important thing the United States has done in the Middle East since the invasion of Iraq, There no doubt about it. First of all, let's just start with him as an individual. You know, when the CIA looks at whether to whether to eliminate an individual, one of the things they ask is can he be

easily replaced. So if we's going to be just whackamle we get rid of this guy, is another one going to pop up. And and in the case of Solomony, he was absolutely unique, absolutely indispensable, you know the the uh You can almost never say that about somebody, that they are indispensable. But he's been in that job for years. He is. He was responsible for Iran's policy toward the entire Arab world. He's the de facto head of Special Forces,

head of the CIA. I mean if he were if we were to map him onto onto the American system, he would be the head of Special Forces, the head of CIA, the head of USAID, and the head of the State Department with regard to all of the Arab world and beyond Afghanistan as well. Um Java Zaief is not the real or minister. He's the errand boy of costumes, sure the money. You know, he's lieutenant general. He's the head of the Kods Force of the IRGC. So on the org chart, the head of the IRGC was his

commanding officer, but that was not the case. He was an independent force. He had a direct line to the Supreme Leader. He had been He was the architect of this policy of creating militias across the Arab world and then distributing to those militias UH precision guided weaponry, completely with the goal of undermining the US order in the region by undermining America's allies. And he was also putting a noose around the neck of Israel. So getting rid

of him was just in that respect, was fantastic. But if I got to if I can have a second, I'll add a couple of other reasons why this was important. Go ahead. So number two Trump has totally changed the game up until now. For the last three presidents, when we have dealt with Iran, we have always played the

game on Iran's terms. That is that we know that Iran was building these militias, his Balah, the hoopies, the five or six major militias that got in Iraq and so on and that and that, and that those militias are taking orders from Tehran. But when those militias would behave and misbehave, we would always we would always respond weekly against the militias, as if we didn't know that Taihran was actually pulling the strings. Trump has said, I'm not playing that game anymore. I'm not going to play

this game on your terms. I know you're in charge, and I'm going to hold you responsible for what you're doing. That's a strategic shift by US policy. And it's amazing the effect that has had in a very short period of time, because now all of a sudden, Trump has

cut i Ran down to size. It. Ran is not as powerful as United States, and yet we've been treating it like an equal you know, John Kerry sat, he sat in Vienna week after week after week, opposite of the Reef like they were like we were equal powers. And Trump has shown no, Actually, you're a small week power and we are a superpower. And if you bite our ankles too hard, we're going to kick you in the in the teeth, which is exactly what he did. And everyone in the region sees that, and they're all

reacting to it. So we have reinvigoration of the of the of the protests in Iran, of the of the anti Iranian protests in Iraq, and of the protests in Lebanon, among other things. I mean, everyone, everyone in the region immediately felt that the balance of power shifted towards the United States. And if I could just make one last

point I'm making very briefly. We also took out in that attack on Slomanni a number of other individuals, but one really particularly stands out, and that's Al Mohandas, who was Iran's number one guy in Iraq. Simply taking out Mohandas would have been a very big deal. We've of he's kind of been forgotten in the discussion of this because Sulimani was so huge, But the effect of this

for the US relations with Iraq are huge. So, you know, you mentioned one point that I want to kind of hone in on, which is the why you said the last three administrations have effectively looked the other way, been willfully blind refused to poke the bear when it comes to Iran. And I think arguably and you probably agree, really this dates back to both Carter and Reagan. Actually, how do you explain the fact that for all this time we've been so engaged in the Middle East, in

all of these sectarian squabbles. How is it that Iran has gotten off scott free the entire time? What is the explanation within our national security and foreign policy establishment for why we've pursued the path that we have, you know, I M the simple answer is America has a fantasy of returning with with the Islamic Republic, of returning to the relationship it had under the shaw Um, And it

has been telling itself since Reagan. I on hundred percent correct about that, since Reagan has been telling itself that Iran is going to moderate, it's going to become a normal country under the Islamic Republic is going to become a normal country just looking after its interests and we can come to an accommodation with it. That was the whole That was the whole thesis behind the Reagan's arms for hostages that we were we were looking the arms.

You know. Reagan famously went on the on primetime television and told the American people, you know, a couple of months ago, I told you American people that I did not trade arms for hostages. He said, my my, uh, my intentions, um and my gut or I can't remember the exact words, but I I still tell them. I still feel like I didn't do that. But I've looked at the facts and this is what happened. And at the time, I was a student and I heard Reagan saying this, and I thought, how could you not know?

But actually he was. It was true, he didn't He didn't know that he had done that because the goal of sending the arms to the Iranians was during the Iran Iraq War, and their military was supplied by it was all American equipment. They need spare parts. The goal was not to give them spare parts. The goal was to use the delivery of the spare parts to find the moderates in Tehran with whom we could talk so we can get back to the old relationship that we

used to have. So this is a bipartisan American dream. It is. It is. It's stronger today on the left than it is on the right. But you can find it in the Republican sphere as well. And it is the source of these letters that I believe. We won't know until they're declassified, if they ever will be, but that's the source of the letters that I believe. I presume that Obama sent the Obama administration sent to Solomany. The Obama administration believed that Solo that the US and

Iran shared a couple of key vital interests. One was the stability of Iraq, and two was fighting isis. I don't we don't need to go into details. I don't agree with either of those presumptions, but they're very um they're very deep in the foreign policy establishment. That we have overlapping interests with Iran, and if we just show the Iranians that we're not hostile to them, then we can unlinlock the potential for cooperation that the shared interests represent.

This Ben Wangarnin for Buck Sexon. We're back with Mike Duran. Just after this, you're in the Freedom Line. This is the Buck Sexton Show podcast. This Ben Wangarnin for Buck Sexon on the Buck Sexon Show, and we're back with Mike Duran talking about Iran Middle East policy more broadway. We only have a couple of minutes here, Mike, and we've been talking about the sea change that has transpired, not just with Iran but with the Middle East. Frankly,

it's definitely heard by the North Koreans. I'm sure it's heard in Beijing as well. A couple sort of fundamental questions. One, how weak is the Iranian regime today and to the extent it was to fall tomorrow? Do you believe the Trump administration has devised contingency plans so that America's national interest is best served should that happen, I don't know how weak it is. The simple answer is, I don't know. I'm very reluctant to say that that a regime is

going to fall. You know, I watched the Syrian regime very closely, and you know, everyone predicted it was going to fall weeks, months, whatever, and it never did. And of course the Russians stepped in to help it. You know, if it looked like Tehran was really about to collapse completely, it wouldn't surprise me. If we solve the Chinese and the Russians get involved, we may or we may not.

Um uh so Uh, it's clearly. The one thing you can say for sure is that it has a legitimacy crisis of the likes of which it has never seen before. The vast majority of Iranians do not regard it, you know, do not really support it. But it has, you know, this coercive apparatus that people, you know, it's willing to shoot people who want to topple it. And uh and some significant percentage of the population feels that their livelihood, I thought their lives are bound up in the continuation

of them of the regime. So you know, I don't know how long can it limp along like this? I'm really not I'm really not sure. Does the US have contingency plans? I would uh, you know, you never know, but I would doubt it, just because I don't think the Trump administration was thinking. You know, it hasn't had the Its goal has not been to topple the regime. It's goal has been to weaken the regime in order

to get a deal, particularly over the nuclear question. And but by just a little bit of strategic application of American force, Trump has shown the regime to be weaker than I think most people thought it was. And so now all of a sudden we have this question about, well, what if it goes I doubt anyone's thought that through to those who say, lastly, to those who say that China is the biggest threat of all, which I agree with, by the way, I ran as a threat China is

the greatest nation state threat to American liberty. And they say, well, what is really our interest in the Middle East? When you have this massive power that's looming, What is your best argument to them that no, we actually do have an interest in the Middle East in general, in an i Ran situation, that is, in America's a national interest in particular, given the sort of greater challenges that loom over the short, medium and long term. I think it's

all about China. Actually, what's gonna what's going to happen if we're not ter, is that China is going to come in and become the primary supporter, or maybe China and Russia together of the Iranian regime. The Iranian regime's immediate goal is to drive the United States out of the Persian Gulf and to take over control, not necessarily absolute ownership, but control of the vast oil resources of the Gulf. That's what it wants. The target of the

Iranians is Saudi Arabia. They want to take over, They want to control the oil resources of the Gulf, and then the Iranians themselves see themselves as the leaders of the Islamic world. They want to take over the holy

sites in Saudi Arabia. Now, if if China and its ally Iran, if they were to allie together or Russia, China and Iran as a block, then and control the oil resources of the Gulf then they control the oil resources of Europe and they'll start using that privileged position as the main provider of oil to Europe to start weakening the US European bond, and we would have one dominant power on the Eurasian landmasks China, and that's where we want to avoid. We want to avoid China just

completely owning all of Eurasia. That's not good for democracy in America. We've been speaking with Mike Duran, a senior follow at the Hudson Institute, and I think one of the finest minds when it comes to US national security and foreign policy. Mike, thanks so much for coming on the program. Thank you. Ben was a pleasure Pleasures Online. And this is Ben Weingarten in buck Sexton on The buck Sexton Show. We're back right after this. Thanks for

listening to The bus Sexton Show podcasts. Remember to subscribe on Apple podcast, the iHeart Radio app, or wherever you get your podcasts. Welcome back to the buck Sexton Show.

This is Ben Weinegarten in four Buck Sexton. And the big news yesterday beyond the impeachment tarade, which you've already talked about, is that the Trump administration signed a monumental Phase one trade deal with China, And we're going to talk a little bit later in the hour with one of those who was most influential in pushing this administration and representing this administration's tough line on the Chinese Communist Party regime, a tougher line than has ever been pushed

since we formally open relations with China, really beginning with Nixon back in seventy two, which has been, in my view, the most fundamental, most most important, long term, critical and monumental change in US national security and foreign policy. To recognize the nature of the China competition, the China threat, China's adversarial nature, and actually begin to turn the ship of state around because we haven't aided about it, enabled

emboldened this malevolent Chinese Communist Party for decades. To put that deal in context, I think we need to talk a little bit about what is the nature of the Chinese Communist Party regime, because the nature of the regime, at the end of the day, is what matters even more sometimes than what the words are on a piece of paper. And you could say the same thing, for example, with the quote unquote I ran nuclear deal which we

discussed in part already. You can't have a deal with the Mulas that they will abide by in any sense unless they really feel that their livelihood is at stake and the alternative is utter destruction. And not saying it's analogous with China, but what I am saying is that the regime matters above all else, whatever contingencies are, whatever has been put in writing on paper, Honoring a deal

requires two honorable parties to it. And so you have to understand this deal in context of that nature of an expansionist, imperialist, frankly often malign, deceptive regime that is the Chinese Communist Party regime. And so let's talk a

little bit about what their true core aims are. Their true core aim are expand their totalitarian rule so that first of all, the Chinese Communist Party can survive in perpetuity, and second that it can put forth its prerogatives and impose them upon their own people, those in their near abroad quote unquotes, and that includes Taiwan, that includes Hong Kong, that includes others as well, and ultimately expand their power so that they're not just the regional hegemon but the

global hegemon and what would that mean. I mean that China is not only rich, strong, and powerful, but that every other nation effectively bends to China's rule. And the Trump administration has spoken quite openly and honestly about the nature of this regime. The human rights violations that this regime has engaged in are impactful. Not because human rights are necessarily the number one American interest when it comes to foreign powers and how we best deal with them.

We have to deal with the world as it is, not as we wish it to be, but because it tells you something about the way China, the Chinese Communist Party rules its own people, and how it will ultimately treat others as its power expands and its ability to project that power expands globally through things like One Belt, One Road and other initiatives that we've spoken about in prior episodes. There are stories of mass forced oregan harvesting

for prisoners. There's a one child policy, which if you don't know about, I've written a review of an amazing, harrowing documentary on the China's one child policy that, to Amazon's credit, I believe is being distributed through Amazon, which talks about the forced abortions, effectively the Chinese Communist Party ripping children away from their parents and leaving them to

die on the roadsides unthinkable horrors. That's the Chinese Communist Party turning the guns on the protesters in Hong Kong and trying to force extradition so that China can effectively take prisoner those who are supposed to be able to live in the relatively free, although increasingly shrinking, relatively free Hong Kong. The China is supposed to respect Taiwan. China's

threatened invasion of Taiwan. That's why we supply Taiwan with sophisticated weaponry to deter China from seeking to quote unquote reunify a part of China that's not theirs. Threatening foreign ambassadors and other officials, threatening dissidents in the Chinese diaspora around the world that they will potentially injure in prison otherwise punish their families that are back on the mainland should you speak out against the Chinese Communist Party abroad.

That's the nature of the regime that we're dealing with. Two other recent stories caught my eye that really get to the core of what the Chinese Communist Party is about. Here's one headline I believe from life site News. Chinese government demands Christians use religion to quote spread Communist Party principles. Everything serves the Party, including religion. And by the way, religion, of course, during the Cold War was considered by many to be the antidote to the Soviet Union and its

expansionist ideology. So of course any competing worldview is going to be something that if you're the Chinese authorities, you have to clamp down on, because you cannot tower it, any sort of descent, any sort of cracks in the veneer that they've built. And by some measures, Christianity is the fastest growing religion in China, with millions tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions of members, and that's not

even necessarily including those who practice underground. So this is significant. And the article says new draconian rules for religious groups are set to go into place in China, requiring that they spread Unist Party principles. China totalitarian government promulgated new rules on December thirty that will place virtually all aspects of religious life under the control of the Communist Party.

The Administrative measures consist of six chapters and forty one articles governing the quote organization function, supervision and management of religious groups, which would include religious doctrine, annual and daily activities, and rallies. The new rules going to force on February one and come as part of a growing crackdown by Chinese Communists on religion, and many religious minorities have been persecuted.

We didn't talk about the biggest human rights violation of all, which is the actual gulag twenty first century gulags that have been constructed in the Shenjiang province where millions in total of weager Muslim ethnic minorities reside, of which at least a million and probably more I would guess, are held in effectively modern day gulags because of their faith under the guise of potentially posing a threat, a national security threat, but in reality because they pose a threat

because they might believe something that conflicts with Chinese Communist Party principles. But religion has to be bent to support the party because the party resides above all else, and if not, it has to be crushed with an iron fist. And when you infringe upon someone's faith and their conscience, that tells you a heck of a lot about the nature of the authorities that you're dealing with now. In

some ways, I would argue it shows vigoity. If you can't tolerate competing or dissenting views, then how strong can you really be. On the other hand, the fact that they can do this and then put on top of it a massive police state at apparatus in their social credit scores where they govern how good of a citizen you are based upon how closely you hue to Communist

party principles. It's scary that any government could have that power, and that there boarding that technology to many of the other malevolent regimes that they do business way around the world should scare us. And then of course that they're the ones that are the leaders in five G technology, which is going to be the network that serves as the backbone of basically all information transfer and communications throughout

the world, including among our allies. Can you trust a regime that is a social credit score for its citizens, watches their every move and grades them based upon how well they're checking the party boxes. You want to put them in charge of all global telecommunications and information transfer. This is the Chinese regime and then a much smaller example, but that I think gets also to the nature of not just this communist party, but the way that communist

parties have been really forever. This is from Ryan save Dry and the Daily Wire headline Communist China Private ownership of guns in US serious problem must change, Savedra says communists China, which currently has millions of people walked away in concentration camps set in state controlled media this week, the second Amendment is a quote unquote serious problem that there needs to be quote unquote change and had the

American public views private ownership of guns. The Global Times, which is Chinese state run media, published the op ed after a good guy with a gun in Texas stopped a shooting in a church, trying to mock the United States, saying that quote shootings are shocking in a US allegedly governed by law. And he quotes a little bit from the article, and it's worth quoting in part also just to look at the parallels between their propaganda media and

our propaganda media. The article says private gun ownership is a tradition from the early days that the founding of the US in a modern society, the problems created by

this tradition have already exceeded the benefits. It's problematic. American society has already seen serious problems caused by the private ownership of guns, but their massive number has contributed to an enormous and nerves Many interest groups have benefited from it, and some ordinary people have truly gained a sense of safety. To change this habit, which has lasted hundreds of years, tremendous political courage and a rearrangement of interest is required.

Mike Bloomberg agrees facts have proved that the US system is unable to handle the intricacies of countless issues around guns, including politics, economics, law and order in public psychology. The country can either manage the safe storage and use of so many guns owned by ordinary people, nor can it establish a new national system that bans or strictly restricts guns. It cannot even for it cannot even form an overwhelming opinion regarding gun issues, and then Savedra to his credit.

Rights here. China's attack on the Second amm And comes after Hong Kong protesters have requested to have their own Second Amendment rights. J I wonder why so they can

defend themselves from the oppressive Communist Chinese government. And this is also after The Wall Street Journal reported that, following in the footsteps of Mao Zedong during a two day meeting that ended last month by mister she, the part is twenty five member poet Burrow Helas policies as visionary and described him as the Renman wing Shoe or People's Leader, a designation that directly echoes and accolade most closely associated with Communist China's founder Mao Zedong. And of course, like

Mao Zedong, effectively she has absolute power. He is chairman of the party for life. First, there's the use of the propaganda, and the Chinese Communist Party always says, we want to treat every nation with mutual respect and admiration, respect for sovereignty. We don't meadow and others foreign affairs. Okay, well, who are you to be commenting on our Second Amendment in your propaganda rag that's in English so the entire world can read it, and it's a propaganda coup for you.

More importantly is the fundamental issue of what are Second Amendment rights at core? Actually about at core the entire tradition in Western civilization and particular in the anglosphere, is about the right to self defense, self president servation an essential right, and that self preservation both in nature and its self preservation in your political sphere. China, of course, what they don't tell you, has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the entire world. It's almost impossible

to own firearms there as an individual. Why is that the case because the regime can't tolerate it, just like they can't tolerate our First Amendment rights, freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, freedom to debate and argue in an actual open marketplace of ideas. They can't tolerate you being able to defend yourself against any tyranny, again, whether in

nature or the tyranny of an oppressive government. China doesn't want its people to have the right to defend their lives and their liberties because they don't believe that life and liberty trump their tyrannical Iron Communist Party fist. This article is important. This propaganda is important because it gets to the core, which is that China doesn't believe in any rights as we understand them in the West, not for its people and not for those that it interacts with.

Either and that's why in the past the Chinese Communist Party has lied, cheated, and stolen. This Ben Winegarden for Buck sex And on the Buck Sex and Show. We'll be back right after this. You're in the Freedom Hunt. This is the Buck Sexton Show podcast. Welcome back to

the Buck Sex and Show. This is Ben Weinegarden in for Buck Sexton, and we've been talking about the nature of the Chinese Communist Party, which controls all of China, it's businesses, it's people, their right to bear arms or not, as the case may be, their lack of any sorts

of the civil liberties that we enjoy in America. And what I've argued is that you have to keep this context in mind when it comes to all of the United States's official dealings with Chinese Communist Party officials and even with any of their private quote unquote private sector actors, because in reality, there is no there is no distinction between private and public there and so we need to

be very clear eyed about the nature of it. And that is a central context in terms of having a healthy bit of caution and skepticism when it comes to

anything with China. And I believe the administration completely gets this not only because of the way that the administration has described the nature of the Chinese Communist Party and its aims in the past, but by dint of its entire policy towards the Chinese Communist Party speaking openly and honestly about the way that they've abused and ripped off America. In fact, even President Trump during the signing ceremony yesterday

alluded to some of those issues. He basically said, cover your ears, Chinese representatives, while I talk about the truth. Here also bears noting in this deal that we're about to talk with Peter Navarro about tariffs still remain on China. And it's important point, by the way, to note, you know, the entire world told us, and look, I'm a devotee of free enterprise economics, a long time defender of capitalism.

Tariffs run in the face of capitalism to the extent that you have parties that are all really trading on an open and honest playing field. You know where there's comparative advantage, and you're good at this, producing this, you're good at producing this. We trade, everyone ends up better off. Let's not basically put a tax on products and then get into a war over it, and then you're taxing this,

You're taxing televisions, and I'm taxing soybeans. The difference here, The difference is that we have not been operating on anything remotely close to a level playing field, and in fact, we have built the entire world trade financial architecture, global enterprise writ large is attributed to American institutions and largely

American companies, American technologies, American led policies. We invited China to operate in that system under the naive view, that is asked view that economic liberalization would ultimately lead to political liberalization, or maybe for the more cynical people, because they felt that China's a really big marketplace and we better take advantage of it while the getting is good, or someone else will consequences, potentially a US national interests

be damned. And maybe look, maybe they didn't even conceive of the idea that China could end up as strong and as powerful and bellicos increasingly as it has become. Tariffs though they told us you can't impose tariffs, We can't win a trade war, and the Trump administration said, well, actually we can win trade wars. It's going to be easy.

And the fact of the matter is they have been right pretty much every single time in terms of using tariffs as a tool for leverage, not for tariffs in and of themselves, not because the administration loves the idea of the protectionism, but because the administration understands it is a blunt tool that we, with the biggest economy in the world by a large measure of magnitude, can withstand and which will bring parties to the table so that they will no longer rip us off and have unfair

trade and unfree trade and take advantage of us, because we let the world take advantage of us in every single possible realm. And China, of course, is the biggest actor of all in the way of those who have taken advantage of us, as I said before, lying, cheating, stealing their way after being given entree into this amazing global economy that America is the backbone of. They steal hundreds of billions of dollars in intellectual property from us.

They counterfeit goods. They've flooded our soil with fentanyl in places that have been hollowed out and destroyed in no small part because of the offshoring of jobs to China because China is able to compete by paying people nothing. Not only that, it's forced technology transfer. You can't do business in China unless China basically gets the rights to

all of the crown jewels of your company. It's unfair go on on for so long, and it has enabled China to become a serious competitor to America, and again one that based on its nature, threatens our liberty. There's Ben Winegarden in for Buck Sexton back right after this. Thanks for listening to the bus Sexton Show podcasts. Remember to subscribe on Apple Podcast, the iHeartRadio app, or wherever you get your podcasts. Welcome back to the Buck Sexton Show.

This is Ben Weingarten in for Buck Sexton, and we talked a little bit about the Democratic parties ends justify the means sort of perspective, and that has a way of permeating not just our political system, but also our culture, our society, our economic institutions, really every facet of our lives, because leftism demands control over every part of our lives, sort of like with the Chinese and the Chinese Communist Party. It's a similar sort of all encompassing totalitarian in the

sense of controlling everything ethos. And the scary thing is when you see it seep into your culture such that ultimately we have a society that's completely divided in almost every single facet. And when you really think about it in America today, I mean, what does unite people who live on the coasts and people who live everywhere else? When I walk around the streets in New York, ideologically, I'm completely different from everyone around me. Nine pcent of

the time. We disagree on a whole host of subjects. Really, I've thought about this, Maybe the only uniting institution in America today, beyond the fact that the military is still overwhelmingly loved and revered and respected, the only institution certainly related to the government that's respected at this point is sports. I mean, can you think of something else that unites people from all walks of life, from every corner of the country, Whether it's the smallest a grarian town or

the biggest urban center. That's pretty much it's sports. Can a country really survive long term when it is so torn? And I don't want to, I don't want to sort of exaggerate the divide in America, because look, we fought a civil war. In the sixties, tensions were as high as they've been at probably at any time since the

Civil War. There have been all sorts of periods of strife, of partisanship, of animus, and tension within our culture, within our society, and we've been divided and at each other's throats from the beginning. I mean when people talk about the viciousness of the press today, and the press is vicious, and the press does vie and cheat and effectively, as I usually argue, serves as the communications arm of the Democratic Party in many respects. But the press, it used

to be that you had party newspapers. The newspapers were known as party associated publications. I mean, in some ways it was better then because it was more transparent, but they would allege all sorts of asinine things within those publications,

and we were remarkably torn as a country. But again the difference is that at core, there were certain things that did unite us, whether it was our understanding of the founding, our understanding of our history, our understanding of our heritage, our understanding of the fundamental rights and responsibilities that we were built on, even just simple common virtue views on morality, the importance of tradition to having a functional society where we could disagree vigorously on any number

of political issues, but separate the political issues from the things that at core united US. The left can't tolerate that we, as conservatives, we debate them on any number of issues, and I would argue that the average conservative knows a lot more about the left positions than the left knows about our positions, because they believe that their positions have to predominate by hook or by crook. Again, though, what gets more insidious is when you have every element

of your society in aided by politics. And for the latest example of this, there was a story out this week that was big in kind of the financial world,

dominated in the Wall Street Journal and elsewhere. Black Rock, which is the largest investment management company in the world in terms of the amount of money that it manages, about seven trillion dollars in assets that it helps invest on people's behalfs or that people invest through black Rock, they weighed out a whole slew of initiatives under what's called e SG. Now what is ESG Environmental, social and governance focused initiatives that's become a huge thing in the

financial world. If you want to invest in basically green friendway companies, if you want to invest in companies that value quote unquote diversity, not you know, in terms of the way of thought, but in terms of skin pigmentation. If you want to support companies that are truly progressive social justice warriors ESG are usually the kinds of vehicles

you can invest in. Some sort of fund that has portfolio of companies that are all social justice warrior companies and that has become a massive industry in financial services.

Black Rock, the biggest asset manager in the world, is one of the leaders in ESG, and this week they lay it out a slove of initiatives on stated environmentalist grounds, So under sustainability and environmentalism in ESG slove initiatives where not only will they be following these initiatives and basically imposing their progressive views on all of their employees, but also on all of the companies and other assets that

they invest in invest in. So in other words, they will push if through black Rock their investors own expert scent of a company. Let's say that company is an energy company, and that a company isn't a clean energy company, they'll push the board to get more clean and they can do that because they effectively control the money, I mean, follow the money in that company. So let's look at what some of these initiatives are. Their CEO wrote to

other CEOs. We don't yet know which predictions about the climate will be most accurate, nor what effects we have failed to consider, but there's no denying the direction we are heading. Every government, company and shareholder must confront climate change unquote. So the controller of more assets under management than any investment manager in the world is saying climate change. It's fact, world's gonna end in I guess eleven years. Probably they used to say twelve, but we're a year

in the future now. Investing decision should be made on that basis. Basically, our entire society should be organized around that. And that's not a government talking. This is the private sector to a private sector company that effectively through all of the different assets that you can invest in, the stocks, bonds, and everything else that one either an individual or a big pension fund or an endowment, college endowment or your company can invest in through black Rock. You can invest

in everything through black Rock. Basically, the entire global market you can invest in through them. So when black Rock says basically tow the party line and we're going to nudge the companies that do any business with us, which is basically every company towards telling their environmentalist line, that's sort of a scary state of play. He goes on another letter to Black Rock clients to say, we believe

that sustainabilities should be our new standard for investing. Okay, well, look, as a private sector company, they are more than welcome to do whatever they want. I mean, one of the proposals is they're going to get out of investing in any businesses that generate meaningful amounts of revenue from thermal coal production. They're going to kick it out of their

portfolios that they offer to people. They're going to push clients to adhere to the company's priorities such as un sustainable development goals such as gender equality and affordable and clean energy. They're going to substantially increase the number of social justice friendwa investment offerings. Look, they're welcome to do

this stuff. And they've also, by the way, joined the Climate Action one hundred plus, which engages with companies to improve climate disclosure and align business strategy with the goals of the Paris Agreement, is that what you think private sector companies should be in the business of. Look again, I don't begrudge them. They can put forth whatever view they want, and in a free marketplace, thank god, you

can move elsewhere. If you don't like what the CEOs stand for, if you don't like their company policies, take your money out where, protest them, boycott them if you want, that's fine, but recognize how much of the marketplace this actually impacts. Because if we're talking about seven trillion dollars worth of wealth invested across a whole swough of different companies, you can damn well be sure this is going to impact any number of companies, and if you don't tow

the party line, your stock is going to creator. That's meaningful. So we see this on a micro level, this sort of control with a cancel culture, where if you don't tow the progressive line, you're throwing out your ability to

live work function in society is basically over. We've seen, for example, that payment processing companies like PayPal and the like will kick people off of their services who are funded by people like you and me to be able to produce content that a major corporation won't allow them to produce again because it flats PC norms kicked off, can't make a living, can't use the payment processing company.

This is far bigger. I mean, this is again seven trillion dollars almost in assets under management to the party line. This should really scare us, in my opinion, And it's not just about this particular move, and it's not just about the fact that, look, you know live and we live. If they want to be woke capital, they can be woke capital. Okay, they can deal with the consequences of that. But there are a couple broader points to be made.

One is the fact that this is representative of where corporate America is, where they have basically entire sections that are dedicated to making sure that you don't run a foul of political correctness, and you don't run a foul of the progressive sort of ethos that dominates in all of our lead institutions, in our colleges, in our media, in every facet of society that is responsible for imparting views to people and telling people how they should think.

So it should scare us from the perspective of this is but one massive granted company. But what do you think the management teams look like a pretty much all of the major corporations, And do you think they care more about the people that they have their cocktail parties with, who run the schools that they send their kids to, their attorneys, all the senior management at these companies. Do you think that they care more about you the deplorable or do you think they care more about the people

that they're friends with? And they think everyone else thinks like because they think that their views, which are held by really like ten or twenty percent of the country, are actually the mainstream views, and that the real mainstream views in the country that the forgotten man in this country holds traditions they hold, dear, are fringe. I want to talk a little bit more about woe capital, and we'll do so right after this short break is Ben

Wangarten and for Buck Sexton. Back right after this. You're in the Freedom Hud. This is the Buck Sexton Show podcast. Welcome back to the Buck Sexton Show. This is Ben weine Garden in for Buck Sexton. And before the break we were talking a little bit about woke capital, and this is truly woke capital, because investment managers are a key part of sort of the capital markets and the financial industry and basically where funds get directed in our economy.

That tells us what companies grow and succeed in which companies fail. And I was talking about the significance of this particular company, black Rock, as the biggest asset manager in the world, and they're also one of one hundred and eighty one maybe plus employers who signed on to an agreement which basically said that companies no longer their primary focus is no longer creating value for their owners their shareholders, but to serving all stakeholders. They signed onto

this agreement changing what the principles of business are. The business should be about protecting the environment by embracing sustainable practices across our businesses. That is black Rock and basically all of the biggest company is in a bunch of different sectors agreed. It's not about making money for your owners anymore and serving your owners, it's in part about

serving environmental causes. But there's a hypocrisy in this, and it actually winks back to what we've been discussing and will continue to be discussing over the next couple of days. Actually China and US China policy. Here's the hook. Okay, to the extent that Blackrock and these other companies are sustainability driven and their true believers and their principles, how do they square that with the exposure that they and many of these other companies have to the world's biggest

polluter in China. Let me explain this a little more. Black Rock, for example, has expanded its offerings of China specific investment vehicles. So you are, again, a big pension fund or an endowment can invest more and more money in big Chinese companies, probably companies that are polluters, or if not, at least their companies that prop up a Chinese Communist Party regime that allows companies to and destroy

the environment there. But you haven't really heard of any any of these big companies saying we will no longer do business with the China and the Chinese market due to their lack of sustainable practices in their businesses. As I said, investors basically not only underwrite some percentage of the companies the pollute, they effectively prop up this regime

that enables that pollution. So can you really call yourself a proponent of environmental justice and claiming you care about sustainability if with one hand you say we're going to punish basically non Chinese companies that don't hute our environmental principles, but we're going to actually increase our investment holdings and offerings in Chinese companies. And it's not just the environmental hypocrisy here, it's also investing in other non social justice

warrior friendly firms like, for example, Hick Vision. Hick Vision is a China base and Hangsu business that produces the cameras that surveil the minority weager Muslim population that is being held in modern day gulags in China Shinjiang Province. Where's woe capital on that? You know? We saw this with Nike where God Forbid. A senior executive for the Houston Rockets basketball team comes out and says something of

pro Hong Kong, and the backlash is swift. Because Nike has all their profits tied to doing business with China, they get awfully quiet when it might impact their bottom line with their social justice warriordom. I want to see all the financial services companies come out and say we're not going to do business with China because they flout progressive norms, values and principles. But you won't see it. And why won't you see it? Because at the end of the day, it is profits the matter. It's profit

that's matter. It's profits the matter. And oh, by the way, it goes beyond that. Because these EESG products, the sustainability products that they offer, and this push for green company, I'll bet you find in a lot of ways it's a racket. Because of those companies that fit this EESG environmentalism,

sustainable social governance and the like. What percentage of those companies receive chrony capitalists benefits It's not even woke capital it's more like woke chrony capital How many of them receive huge subsidies from the government to basically keep afloat companies that otherwise wouldn't be able to exist on the free marketplace because they can't compete with the traditional industries that we've had in this country. What percentage of them

get tax breaks and write offs? What percentage of them have their business almost completely tied to government support in one way or another? And then, oh, by the way, factor in that some of these pensions and other government associated investors including governments themselves and sovereign wealth funds invest

through places like Black Rock. There's sort of playing both sides because on the one hand, the government supports all these policies, and then on the other hand, the government is investing those pension funds in the very companies that benefit from those government policies. So we should call a spade a spade when it comes to woke capital, whether it's a big st manager or Nike or anyone else. Really, at the end of the day, it's about profits. Let's

not call it woke capital. Let's call it woke crony capital. This Ben Wangaran in for Buck Saxon on The Buck Sex and Show. We'll be right back. Thanks for listening to The Bus Sex and Show podcasts. Remember to subscribe on Apple Podcasts, the iHeart Radio app, or wherever you get your podcasts. Senator Sands, I do want to be clear here. You're saying that you never told Senator Warren that a woman could not win the election. The Senator Warren, what did you think when Senator Sanders told you a

woman could not win the election? I disagreed. Bernie is my friend, and I'm not here to try to fight with Bernie. But look, this question about whether or not a woman can be president has been raised, and it's time for us to attack it head on um. And I think the best way to talk about who can win is by looking at people's winning record. So can a woman beat Donald Trump? Look at the men on

this stage collectively, they have lost ten elections. The only people on this stage who have won every single election that they've been in are the women. Told me a liar on National TV. He's a little I think you told me a liar on National MOVING. Let's not do it right now. You want to have that discussion, we'll have that discussion. You call meal and you told me. I just want to say hydriden good. If you haven't seen it, you've got to see that last clip with

the Curb your Enthusiasm music dubbed over. It's and not only because the Larry David Bernie Sanders likeness, but it's just too perfect for that whole episode. So you probably been following this. It's almost getting annoying at this point. The mini confrontation what I would call sort of an Iran Iraq war, which you really don't want to get in the way of between Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren CNN.

Of course, it seems probably leaked from the Warren camp or those close to the Warren camp, comments from Bernie saying that a woman couldn't be president with respect to Elizabeth Warren, I believe, back in twenty eighteen. Then Bernie during the debate the other night, gets asked, you know, essentially a do you beat your wife's sort of question effectively,

especially for the Democratic fields. He denies it, but then of course they act in asking Warren about it as if he didn't just deny it, and then after when it shouldn't have been recorded, there's a hot mic with this whole exchange between Bernie and Warren, and I think we have to stop and ask ourselves for a minute. Why is it that the long knives, at least at

CNN seemed to be out for Bernie Sanders. You know, he claimed that the twenty sixteen primary with Hillary Clinton was rigged in her favor, and I think that's absolutely the case, and there's plenty of empirical evidence to show it. Why now, you know, their ideas Bernie versus Warren's ideas are not all that different. She just polishes it with a more sort of academic and serious kind of face to it, more rigorous and substantive garbage. But why are

the long knives out for him? I would suggest the long knives are out for Bernie because they recognize that he is a serious threat to win this thing. You know, Bernie. It looks like Biden is going to sort of cruise to the finish, even though he really has been incoherent, largely for almost the entire set of debates. He's wrong. He's been wrong on every single issue in public life that matters. He represented a terrible administration that preceded this one.

You know, and look at look at what is the substance of the democratic message. It's, you know, let's keep terrorists alive, solomni let's bribe and appease adversary regimes. I ran. China isn't a problem, says Joe Biden, and then he has the gaul to go out there and attack this Phase one China trade deal that we'll be talking about a little bit later this evening. Socialized medicine, open borders, infanticide.

Take an economy that's rip roaring from the perspective of job growth and wage growth and expansion in industries that had been hollowed out and destroyed in the past, repatriation of something like a trillion dollars. I believe in wealth back to America, confronting our enemies, which is in our economic and national security interest. That's their message. All. No matter who their nominee is, he's going to be pulled in that direction at the very least to win the primary.

You know, Biden doesn't really have any beliefs as far as I can tell, So he's going to be a kind of weak representative of the leftist mating factors that are really what's driving this entire Democratic Party, which is why we're having impeachment right now in the first place, which is why Nancy Pelosi has completely caved to the squad and almost every single issue imaginable. Why are the long knives out for Bernie because he actually believes in

this stuff. It represents where the energy in the party is, and he has a real chance to win it. That's the thing. He has a real chance to win it. So this party that talks about their concern for democracy, well, if he is the candidate that prevails in their democratic Democrat process, shouldn't they let him go? I think they recognize the powers that be, their political establishment recognizes that

Bernie could likely be suicide for them. But you know what separates Bernie from the other candidates is that he actually believes the communist sort of rhetoric. He's got communists working for his team. You've probably seen the Gulag video that came out of one of his staffers recently. He's got a swam mess on his team, like Linda Sarsour not to mention on Omar and the like the long

knives around because they think he's serious. And then you notice, and I believe Buck might have talked about this yesterday. Well let's go to clip six. Let's go to clip six. And I want to say, that's a night for me was dispiriting. Democrats got to do better what we saw at night. There was nothing I saw at Knight that would be able to take Donald Trump out. And I want to see a Democrat in the White House as

soon as possible. There was nothing to night that if you're looking at this thing, you say, any of these people are prepared for what Donal Trump is gonna do to us? That was Van Jones and I agree with Van Jones on his political assessment here, and he's not alone, by the way. Al Sharpton also came out on MSNBC Famous Race. Bader visited the Obama's White House, however many dozens of times as treated as a legitimate figure in spite of the fact that he incited literal pigrums in

New York. Becoming relevant again now sad way, you know, twenty thirty years later, Sharpton two afraid none of these people can go toe to toe with Trump again. You know, frankly, I agree with their assessment. You have to ask why, though, why why is it that they don't believe any of them can compete with Trump? And why would they come out and say this. Could it be that they're trying to create sort of a ground swell on the left for a different candidate to emerge. Could it be maybe

Michelle Obama? And we've heard this rumor before, but the Obama team has been awfully quiet, and there are reports out there saying that if Bernie were a seriously challenge and potentially be in a position to become the nominee, that Obama would speak out. Could it be that this is all sort of an elaborate employ given out week Biden as ban and remember Barack Obama would not endorse the odds on favorite in their field. Could it be

that this is all about a draft Michelle movement? She didn't want to do it, but then the Democratic Party forced her and it was her patriotic duty to do so so that she could once again be proud of America again. And one of my colleagues at the Federalists today as an article, Tristan Justice, has an article about how could it be that the delay in the impeachment is about rigging Iowa against Bernie Sanders? Again, rigging it

against Bernie? Why would that be? Well, if Bernie and his fellow senaitors who are running are forced to be sitting for the impeachment trial, and it looks like it's going to run right up against the start. Certainly at a minimum of the Democratic primary process, including I believe the February third Iowa caucuses, he'll be off the campaign trail, taking him off the field. Now that that obviously supports Biden. Could it go beyond Biden? Could it go to a

Michelle Obama. Incidentally, there's also a caucus change that happened in the rules for Iowa that you might not have heard about. This was in the Transom which Ben Dominic's

great news letter Ben Dominech, publisher of The Federalist. He quotes an article which talks about how, for the first time, i quote in the history of Iowa's Democratic caucuses, the party will report the raw vote count for each candidate, and because of idiosyncrasies in the caucus process, the person with the most votes at the beginning won't necessarily be the one with the biggest delegate hall at the end. Think of it as Iowa's version of the twenty sixteen

electoral college issue. In Iowa, traditionally it's the delegates the matter, and party leaders here are emphasized that shouldn't change. Ultimately, the presidential primary contest comes down to who gets the most delegates. But the disclosure of two vote tallies and one delegate counts on the night of the February third caucuses and move made to inject more transparency into the caucus process is threatening to muddle the narrative coming out

of Iowa. And here's the real takeaway. Depending on how the numbers are interpreted, there's a scenario in which more than one candidate could claim a win quote unquote, do you see they're starting to rig the process and all sorts of ways. The question is is it for Bernie or is it for someone else? And before we go to break, I want to talk just briefly a little bit about impeachment. You know, it's sort of infringes upon in some ways, their entire primary process. It puts a

cloud over it. It's obviously intended to put a cloud over the entire Trump presidency. I hate talking about impeachment because I think it's an illegitimate process, both in terms of the procedural way that it's been pushed onto us, imposed on Congress, and imposed upon the American people. When all of these Democrats, including Jerry Nader and others, you know, during the Clinton impeachment trial, we're saying one thing now

and during these proceedings are saying another. It's not only rigged on the process, but I think it's totally illegitimate on the merits as well. So I really don't like talking about it, and I don't like focusing on it because I don't think it is worthy of our focus and attention, because it's not worthy of our American political system,

our constitutional republic. But you know, yesterday the House Democratic Managers prayerfully and somberly signed the impeachment article as using approximately one seven hundred and seventy six pens, with Nancy Plosa screaming out, you get a pen, and you get a pen, and you get a pen. But they were very serious and somber, prayerful, thoughtful, and then they had their procession, their little awake as they're in mourning, as

they went over to the Senate. And of course, you know, of these impeachment managers, six of them publicly supported impeaching the president before the quote unquote whistle blower complaints regarding the phone call with the president of Ukraine Zelinski. You know that this is a ruse. Well, what is impeachment actually about? What should we be how should we be thinking about this given that it's a total charade. Obviously they're the sort of immediate term considerations, the political attack

considerations for the left. You know, this is about paralyzing the Trump agenda in an election year. It's about fundraising, it's about appeasing the extremist progressive base which is currently ascendant in the Democratic party, and I believe is taking

it over. If not, it may have already taken it over in some ways, potentially forcing the administration or Republicans and both the House and the Senate into making tactical errors, forcing the administration to produce all sorts of documents that they can that the Democrats can then portray in the worst possible way and attempt to smear the administration again going into an election year, maybe most important way from

a political perspective, forcing Republican senators into making tough votes, potentially delegitimizing President Trump for a second term. What I think the importance of impeachment is is it's the same significance as Kavanaugh. You know, the Kavanaugh hearings were much bigger than Kavanaugh. It was about the nature of our political adversary and the way that they play the game and the rules that they adhere to or don't adhere to.

And if it wasn't clear to you, then, frankly, if it wasn't clear to you back in the days of Clarence Thomas and Anita Hill, the Left play is to win at all costs. They'll invoke the Constitution on the one end, and they'll shred up the Constitution on the other when it suits them, they claim that impeachment is a purely political process when their party controls it in the House, and a purely strictly legal process when it

ultimately hits the Senate. We're up against the political adversary that wants to destroy us to retain its own power and privilege and grow it. There's no level to which they won't sink, There's no amount of shame to which they won't reach, There's no level hypocrisy doesn't matter for them. Remember, since before the start of the Trump presidency, it was resist, resist, resist,

and our side doesn't fight the same way. With few exceptions, you know, it's movement conservatives and a fraction of a fraction of those in Congress and elsewhere. Trump has shown the way tactically and strategically how to fight the left, to fight fire with fire. Yes, sort of like Solomoni. Solomoni was a game changer because the other side never expected it. Our side needs to act like that on more issues, core issues that are about defending and protecting

this constitutional republic that we love. The left will never, ever, ever, ever stop fighting till the day Donald Trump is out of office, and then probably after he's out of office, they'll pursue him, and then they'll go after the next Republican and the next one and the next one. Because for them politics it's not even religion. It goes beyond religion. For them, it's their entire being. They're wholly consumed by it.

For them, in their view, it's about good versus evil, and they need to destroy us because we're either evil or stupid. We're seeing this view manifest itself even in the private sector, which is controlled by progressives. And we'll talk about that a little bit later, but for now, I want to leave you with a message that impeachment, what it should represent for us is this, this is

the nature of the left. We need to fight with the same intensity, with the same rigor, with the same seriousness that they bring to the table, because they fight us every single day of every single year. And it's about time we woke up to it. This president has the entire Republican Party must This has been war in for Buck Sexon on The Buck Sexton Show. We'll be back reddet you're in. This is the Buck Sexton Show Podcast. Welcome back to The Buck Sexton Show. This is Ben

Weingarten in for Buck Sexton. We only have a couple of minutes before my next guest, who I'm very pleased to have on, Johnny Eastman, comes on and joins the program, and before we get to that conversation, I need to provide a little bit of framing for it. Eastman is one of the premier scholars in my view when it comes to constitutional matters, in particular dealing with immigration and

national sovereignty. And in our prior segment we were talking about impeachment and the nature of the Democrats march and that they'll fight dirty, they'll fight any which way to

win on any grounds they possibly can. And one of the most nefarious ways that they do it is through not even amnesty, but the very fact that non citizens and in in particular disproportionately illegal aliens are able to come here, and Democrats promote it because it actually impacts the political process even before they potentially all get amnestied at some future point. And I've talked about this before and it's relatively arcane, but bear with me because it's really significant.

We talked about the census and what the census means for political power for your vote and the votes of every American. The census tells us how many people and that includes citizens and non citizens, including millions of illegal aliens, reside in the US. And those total population numbers, not just the number of citizens, not just the number of eligible voters and the like. Those numbers are what is used actually to determine entire legislative districts, so apportionment of

congressional seats. We today count again millions of millions of non citizens in these numbers, and what does that do well. Report came out from the Center for Immigration Studies, which believes in restricting immigration numbers, and it showed this. The twenty twenty census will show that the presence of all illegal of all immigrants, which is naturalized citizens, legal residents, and illegal aliens and their US born minor children, is

responsible for a shift of twenty six House seats. Twenty six house seats of the twenty six seats that will be lost due to redistricting due to these total population numbers that come from the insis that includes millions of non citizens including illegal aliens. Twenty four are from states that voted for Donald Trump in twenty sixteen. Of states

that will gain House seats because of immigration. Nineteen will go to the Soldiway Democrat states of California and New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts in Illinois, Texas is the only solid or solidy Republican state that will gain, while Florida is a swing state. So what I want to talk about with John Eastman is how did we get to such a place where non citizens could so gravely impact the power of your vote, the weight of your vote, and

disenfranchise you without even a mass amnesty. This is Ben Wegarden in for Buck Sexton. We'll be up with Professor John Eastman right after this. Thanks for listening to The bus S Show podcasts. Remember to subscribe on Apple Podcasts, the iHeart Radio app, or wherever you get your podcasts.

Welcome back to the Buck Sexton Show. This is Ben Weingarten in for Buck Sexton, and before the break I talked a little bit about the impact of non citizens in our census count and how that drastically has swung

political power. Based upon some one study that has come out regarding what non citizens will do to twenty twenty population numbers in the census count, and those population numbers translate that into how the electoral map is drawn and basically give Democrats substantial power because mass illegal alien populations, even if they're never amnesty, it'll ultimately swing power to

you guessed it generally democratic districts. And I have on the line with me an expert in not only constitutional law generally, but in particular immigration and has written and spoken at length about these and other relevant issues. And that's doctor John Eastman, who's the founding director of the Claremont Institute's Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence and a senior Fellow

of the Claremont Institute. And he also serves as the Henry Salvatory Professor of Law and Community Service at Chapman University's Daily four School of Law. Doctor Eastman, thanks so much for joining us. Well, thanks very much. I'm sorry that the introduction is such a mouthful. Not a problem at all, and it's a testament to your scholarship and

your great work. And I want to start in a sort of a fundamental question that I think most Americans would find curious if they were aware of it, and that is, why are non citizens, including millions of legal aliens, counted in our census? And why does that number dictate. Then how the districts are drawn for house seats across the country. Well, it's it's kind of grown up over time with a kind of false understanding of the constitution. The Constitution says, for our senses, every ten years, we

have to count all persons. And then you know, treated slaves as three fifths of a person. That was largely designed to minimize the electoral weight of the Southern states.

And then and then excluding Indians not taxed. And the point of that last clause is a recognition that there are some people here on our shores, within our borders, who are not part of our political community, and we're not going to count them in the census, because, as the Declaration of Independence sets out, government is based on the consent of the government. That means the people who form part of the political community are the only ones

that are entitled to representation in that political community. Excluding Indians not taxed was the example of people within our borders at the time who were not part of our political community. And therefore we're not going to be counted because that would skew the representation of those who were

entitled to be represented in our halls of governments. That whether it's the excluding Indians not tax clause or a more limited understanding of person, that meant persons who are here and part of our political community, not anybody who happens to be here temporarily visiting, would be counted. And that's the only theory that's consistent with the doctrine of consent outlined in the Declaration of Independence. So do we not,

in effect today have foreign interference in our elections? Writ large by dinner of the fact that millions of illegal aliens dictate how much the relative vote of one person living in California is versus another person living in Alabama. Let's say, well, that's absolutely true, and let me know,

kind of push the example here, the hypothetical. Let's suppose you've got a district that has one legal voter and half a million illegal immigrants or even temporary visitors who are on student visas who are not eligible to vote. That one voter gets to choose a member of Congress, whereas in the next distric over that have a half million citizens, each one of them gets one one five hundred thousandth of the weight of that vote for that

member of Congress. That vote dilution that occurs by counting illegal immigrants, legal immigrants who are not citizens, people who are on temporary visitors, what have you, that really skews and dilutes the vote of those citizens in other districts. One other example on this, and I think it's important, let's suppose the nineteen eighty four Olympics in Los Angeles was actually held four years earlier in nineteen eighty when

the census was going on. That brought several million people from around the world to Los Angeles, and if we had counted them just because they were persons who were physically present at the time the census was being conducted, we would have handed Los Angeles County and therefore California half a dozen new congressional seats as a result of people who were just temporary visitors here. The absurdity of that should explain what's wrong with the way we're doing

the census now. And of course, amazingly, during the Trump term, we've seen this huge debate and I sort of noticed that it was going to become an emerging issue when former Attorney General Eric Holder started to write and speak publicly about it. In terms of the census citizenship question, which as our listeners might recall, the Trump administration wanted

to simply ask are you a citizen or not? To the head of households responding to the census, something where there's a long history of asking different derivations of this question, and even on the non main census, the Obama administration asked a similar question, not asking someone to incriminate themselves, and we can debate whether they should or not be asked really the more important question, which is are you here legally or not? But rather are you a citizen

or not? And the Democrats fought this tooth and nail, and ultimately one in the courts on what I would argue your ass and on grounds and I'm sure you probably have a similar view on that that the question should be kicked out, basically because the courts didn't approve of the way that the Trump administration went about incorporating

the question. But recently a study came out and part of the reason the Democrats argued against the inclusion of this question was that they said, well, look, non citizens and presumably illegal aliens will be afraid to contribute to the census if this question is asked, because they'll be

in some way, shape or form, incriminating themselves. But the Census did a test on this, and it recently came out that actually there would not be a statistically significant or meaningful drop off in responses to this question about census citizenship. So I just want to get your general take on what do you make of that study and

the census citizenship debate more broadly. Well, you know, we'd asked about citizenship, not surprisingly on every census that had been done up until nineteen fifty, safer one or two back in the early eighteen hundreds, and then since nineteen fifty it was asked on every census on the long form, which went to a statistically significant but not entirely every

household on the long form census. It was only in the twenty ten Census that it was drawn from either the regular census or the long form census form during the Obama administration. Now, to be fair, that dropping of it occurred earlier during the Bush administration, but they had

moved it to the annual Community Survey. But the fact that we're not asking that on the decenial census that the Constitution mandates every ten years means that people have gotten this completely crazy notion that our representation ought to be based on non citizens as well as citizen and it completely destroys the notion of consent as the basis of our government. Anybody who happens to be here gets a share in the weight of representation, even if they

can't vote for that representative. That's absurd, and no other country in the world does that. And in fact, the United Nations some years ago recommended to all member or nations that they ask about citizenship on their senses. And I thought that the left believed in the UN as the highest body in the globe. So it's quite a

rod I don't right. And and in the next segment I want to ask you about a similar policy to that, which is the remain in Mexico policy, which we'll get to in a minute, and what international law would say about that. But I do think it also is worth noting that it is not only your voting power in effect, they can get deluded or artificially bumped as a result of counting non citizens, but it's also how hundreds of billions of dollars in federal funds are allocated. In a

lot of respects. It is really about you getting less representation in some ways than non citizens getting representation. Well, that's right. And look, I've been a leading proponent of the view that all of these grants and aid programs to the states that serve particular constituencies or particular regions rather than furthering the general or national welfare, are unconstitutional.

The Article one, section eight clause that allows for spending says spending for the common defense, not the local police force and the general welfare. That doesn't mean I get to widen, you know, the road in my community. Maybe I can participate an interstate highway system, but I don't get to put palm trees on the center median of my main street because that's not the general welfare, that's

the local welfare. And so, you know, we have for about eighty years now ignored that fundamental limitation on the power of Congress and completely distorted funding mechanisms where we now have complete disconnect between the taxes raised and the benefits being provided. Used to be if I was going to provide a benefit, I would tax the people that were going to benefit from it, and they could make them a judgment or whether it was worth the taxes

to pay for the benefit or not. Now we've got this crazy situation where people are in Rhode Island are paying to widen my road in Long Beach and vice versa, and there's complete disconnect and it's an unconstitutional one and it's exacerbated when they're sending money to provide welfare programs that inevitably end up in the hands of people who are not even here legally. And somebody will tell me, well, the statutes all prohibit illegal immigrants from having access to

these programs. And then you do a follow up question and you ask any single welfare office do you check on whether somebody applying for the benefits is here legally or not? And they say, no, we're not allowed to do so. Of course, there's a massive amount of fraud on those welfare programs and that because of money is flown and they're creating a constituency for one political party in this country rather than another, which is another dangerous aspect of all of this. This has Ben Wangarton in

for Buck Sexton more with doctor John Eastman. Just after this quick break, you're in the Freedom Hud. This is the Buck Sexton Show podcast. Welcome back to the Buck

Sexton Show. This is Ben Wangarton in four buck Sexton, and we've been talking with doctor John Eastman about all things immigration, in particular on the sense of citizenship question and what that means for the power of your vote and really the broad disproportionate foreign interference that we see that the Left doesn't seem to care about because of course, in this case it works for them. I mentioned before the break the remain in Mexico policy, and apparently Democrats

are planning in the House, are planning on probing this policy. Doctors, can you tell us a little bit about what that policy entails regarding asylum claims and then speak to the legitimacy of it. Well, there's international treaties on this that deal with refugees, and the rule is you're supposed to claim refugee status or seek asylum as a refugee or somebody who would be politically prosecuted or persecuted in your home country in the first safe country that you arrive in.

That's not what's happening with a massive amount of immigration from Central America and South America through Mexico into the United States. They are just bypassing Mexico or the other countries on their route in order to get to the United States, which is a pretty good indication this is not true asylum effort. They're just trying to get to a better economy, and I don't blame them from trying.

The question is whether we were legally obligated to the President Trump saying no, you're gonna have to ask for asylum in the first country of origin or we're not going to accept you. Now, that means people that we're pleaing religious or political persecution in Mexico would have a

claim for seeking asylum in the United States. But people coming up from Guatemala and Venezuela or Honduras or Nicaragua through Mexico, where they could seek asylum there, and then bypassing that and seeking it in the United States are leap frogging this rule. Now. I've not done a deep dive on the application of the rule. There's some indication that maybe you have to have a bilateral agreement in place with the particular country, like we would have to

have one with Mexico before that can be triggered. I don't know the answer to that, but it's certainly something that the United States ought to be pursuing vigorously is to enforce this international norm that asylum seekers need to ask for asylum when they get to the first safe

place to do it. Lastly, in about a minute and a half or so, there was a ruling from I believe, a federal judge in Manhattan putting a temporary halt sorry in Maryland rather putting Freudian slip there, putting a temporary halt on the ability for states, and I believe even smaller jurisdictions than just states, to reject refugees being resettled within their borders by a result of the Trump administration

executive action on the matter, which makes intuitive sense. If you don't believe that refugees should be resettled in your state, why should you be forced to accept them? But now a judge just said no, an individual governor, for example, what Governor Abbott in Texas cannot reject refugees being resettled in their states? What do you make of the ruling in general? And then the problem of nationwide injunctions more broadly, well, so the ruling in general, the judge starts off, he's

wringing his hand as melogrammatic. He says, this violates every norm and it violates this clear text of the statue and whatever. Well, you know, he doesn't ever actually cite this text of the statue, And the text of the statue specifically says that in our resettlement programs, we're supposed to consult with the state and local government officials, and if they don't want the refugees, we need not place

them there. The Trump order doesn't doesn't give the state and local government officials an absolute veto, as the judge claimed. It just says, if we don't want them, the United States is not going to force the refugees on them unless the United States determines that it's absolutely necessary. So on both counts, that the statute doesn't involve the state and local governments, the judge is wrong. And that it gives the state and local governments an absolute veto, the

judge is wrong. So I have no doubt that that decision will ultimately be overturned. Whether in the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals that supervises the Maryland courts or ultimately in the Supreme Court, remains to be seen, but it will eventually be overturned. So flatley contrary to the statute. Now,

the other issue about nationwide at junctions. As you ask, the Supreme Court is already strongly indicated that there is a huge problem with a single federal trial judge sitting in Baltimore, Maryland, or in Hawaii or in San Francisco, basically altering the political policy judgments of the elected branch of government, the elected president by issuing a nationwide injunction.

The leftists on the courts who are smart, understand the Supreme Court is about to shoot that whole thing down, and so they are modifying their own district court nationwide injunctions to apply only to the particular parties in the case. But you still get these outlier judges who just think they can buy a stroke of a pen, become president

of the United States and set our immigration policy. It's absolutely outrageous, and I look forward to the Trump administration hopefully fighting this vigorously at the Supreme Court and prevailing. All right, doctor Usman, We're going to leave it right there. Thanks so much for taking the time to come on today. Thanks very much, Ben, Take care and this has been Ben Wangarten in four Bucks exton. I want to thank you for the time and sharing this time with me today.

I hope you have a great evening, and we'll be back tomorrow.