Financial Expert Liz Peek Explains the Many Reasons Joe Biden Will Not Stand up to Ruthless China

Financial Expert Liz Peek Explains the Many Reasons Joe Biden Will Not Stand up to Ruthless China

 

Live from Music Row Thursday morning on The Tennessee Star Report with Michael Patrick Leahy – broadcast on Nashville’s Talk Radio 98.3 and 1510 WLAC weekdays from 5:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. – guest host Christina Botteri welcomed Fox Business contributor and Wall Street expert, Liz Peek, on the newsmakers line to discuss the compromising position of Joe Biden and why he will not pushback on China.

Botteri: And on the newsmaker line with us is the one and only Liz Peek. Liz Peek is a Fox News contributor and former partner at the firm Wertheim and Company, and she’s a former columnist for The Fiscal Times, writes for The Hill, and contributes frequently to Fox News, The New York Sun, and other publications.

You can visit her online at lizpeek.com. You can follow her on Twitter, which I highly recommend @lizpeek. And Liz, you’re here to talk with us about Joe Biden’s China problem.

Peek: (Chuckles) Good morning. Well, he has one. And the problem for Joe Biden is that Americans are increasingly questioning where the Wuhan virus came from. And the mounting evidence is that, in fact, it was created in a lab not originally coming from bats or any kind of intermediary animal.

The Chinese have tested tens of thousands of animals and discovered no such virus exists that they can find it. And even some of our own experts with air quotes, like Anthony Fauci appear to think, yes, this is possible that this came from the lab.

So the question is, what is Joe Biden going to do about it? And I think voters are going to want him to stand up to China on this and other issues, by the way, too. And he can’t. He can’t because he needs China’s help in selling our own or I should say Joe Biden’s own very radical climate agenda to American voters.

Joe Biden basically wants to take offline or incredibly efficient low-cost energy structure and replace it with higher-cost renewables. That will mean everyone’s electricity prices go up and further damage our competitiveness with overseas companies.

And the only way he can even possibly argue that this makes sense is if China does the same thing. China has not done the same thing. They’ve made only the vaguest promises. And of course, China’s emissions are twice those of the U.S. growing very rapidly, whereas ours have not been increasing.

It is completely a fool’s mission to undermine one of the core geopolitical strengths of the United States, such as our incredibly abundant fossil fuel reserves without China making some sort of concession.

And Xi Jinping knows this. He knows this is a very fraught issue for a lot of voters in the U.S. Joe Biden needs his help in terms of Xi Jinping also making climate promises, which so far he’s not done. He also needs Xi Jinping to make sure that we can get back in the Iran nuclear deal.

Right now that’s unacceptable because the Iranians refused to make any changes to the original program. And Xi Jinping has sided with the Mullas and saying, no, no, their original deal is good enough.

Biden, really, if this is the cornerstone of his foreign policy, which it appears to be unbelievable, he needs Xi Jinping to work with him and get this done. But the most important thing probably is that the Chinese may have compromising information about the Biden family.

We know that there are a lot of financial transactions that included obviously Hunter Biden, but also possibly his father, which originated during the time he was vice president and the point person for Obama in China.

A Senate committee basically concluded that, in fact, the Biden’s might have extortion vulnerabilities because of what went on in not just China, but also other countries. And the FBI, let us not forget, is investigating Hunter’s activities for possible money laundering.

It’s a criminal investigation, again, involving his transactions in China. So I think the Chinese government is absolutely ruthless. They will not at all hesitate to leak out damaging information about the Biden family unless Joe Biden kind of plays along.

And I think this was true when Joe Biden was elected as true. Today, the media and social media giants covered it up and stood in the way of American voters finding out about these compromising situations in China.

Now, pretty much it’s gotten out there and I think this is potentially a huge problem for Joe Biden but also, let’s face it, for the United States.

Botteri: Yeah. You’re not kidding. That’s quite a lot to take in. I think the question that a lot of people have is, what can Joe Biden do? What can he get? What can he offer? What does he have that China wants? Is it to stand aside and let China just take over Africa in its entirety?

Is it to allow no change in their emissions standards? I guess, to their credit, China hasn’t made any promises that they’re not fulfilling. They’ve basically said, what? The U.S. cut our emissions? No, thanks. (Peek chuckles) No, we’re not doing that. But even if they did, would they?

Peek: I think you ask a good question. What do they want from Biden? What they want from Biden is basically for the United States not to impede their march towards supremacy. They want to be the number one industrial nation in the world.

Obviously, they’ve made enormous progress towards that end. But Trump was a hiccup. He was a speed bump. I think President Trump did our nation a great service by calling out China’s truly criminal activities, stealing billions, hundreds of billions of dollars, according to some government sources, in our intellectual property, cheating the United States on trade, but also the world on trade.

China is a bad actor. It has never gone along with the strictures of belonging to something like the World Health Organization, as we have seen recently, or the World Trade Organization.

They cheat, they lie. They do whatever is necessary to further their own cause. We had a President, briefly who put America first. There’s no question that Xi Jinping puts China first.

Okay, that’s acceptable as long as he behaves within the norms of conventional international behavior. But he does not. And I think the answer to your question is he wants Joe Biden basically to ignore what’s going on in China in specific about the virus.

Joe Biden will orchestrate a pretend investigation. He’s asked our intelligence agencies to double down on their investigation. He will go along with a rebooted WHO investigation. The World Health Organization.

None of those things is going to get anywhere because the Chinese are basically not allowing their scientists to talk to the Western investigators. They’re not allowing those investigators into the lab to look at their research materials for their procedures.

Little by little, though, it is coming out that this is probably the origins of the virus. And I think what they’re going to demand is that basically, the West do nothing about it. You’d be interested to know, maybe, and your listeners might be interested to know that Australia, to their credit, actually did challenge the origin theory a year ago about where this virus came from.

Australia really demanded answers and was very aggressive about it. In response, China has unleashed an unbelievable trade war against Australia, for which about 20 percent of their exports go to China.

China and Australia have very big trading relationships. China has blocked or sanctioned or now prohibited the importing from Australia dozens of goods. That’s how seriously they are on the attack on this and how aggressive they will be.

What we need to do and what Biden may or may not be able to do is really get the entire EU block and the UK organized with us demanding answers from China and putting out their potential penalties.

Whether it’s trade sanctions or whatever that result if, in fact, China does not cooperate. I don’t think Biden will do that. I don’t think he has the forcefulness to do that. And as I say, he has seriously serious vulnerabilities if he does.

Botteri: You mentioned the pretend investigation, and I just can’t help but wonder are there any real investigations in the Biden administration right now having to do with the serious issues? Are any of the investigations real?

And then something else that kind of struck me. I’m not the person who came up with this, but I think it’s a very provoking thought and one that we should all remember. And it is this. In China, globalism is nationalism.

Peek: Yeah, that’s exactly right. And that has served them well. Again, whatever serves China’s interests are acceptable to China is acceptable to China. And certainly globalism and the fact that the United States will enter into agreements, for example, the Paris Climate Accord is an absolute horror for the United States.

And sadly, because we have this climate-industrial complex now in the U.S. and so little real analysis of the costs of the kind of measures that Joe Biden wants to put through. There is nothing that Xi Jinping would like better than to have America try to cut our emissions in half, as Joe Biden has promised.

Look at California. California is a state which has embraced renewables with great enthusiasm, and their electricity costs are nearly twice that of the rest of the country. Their gasoline costs are probably 30 percent.

Botteri: And growing. Liz Peek, thank you so much for joining us today. I hope you come back again soon.

Peek: Thank you.

Botteri: You always a delight. Thank you so much.

Listen to the full second hour here:

– – –

Tune in weekdays from 5:00 – 8:00 a.m. to the Tennessee Star Report with Michael Patrick Leahy on Talk Radio 98.3 FM WLAC 1510. Listen online at iHeart Radio.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

National Security Expert Bill Gertz Weighs in on Leaving Afghanistan, Department of Defense, and the Woke Military

National Security Expert Bill Gertz Weighs in on Leaving Afghanistan, Department of Defense, and the Woke Military

 

Live from Music Row Thursday morning on The Tennessee Star Report with Michael Patrick Leahy – broadcast on Nashville’s Talk Radio 98.3 and 1510 WLAC weekdays from 5:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. –  host Leahy welcomed author and The Washington Times correspondent on national security Bill Gertz to the newsmakers line to discuss Biden’s recent decision to leave Afghanistan, the U.S military, and the continued threat of China.

Leahy: We are joined on a newsmaker line, our good friend, Bill Gertz the well-known Washington columnist, an expert on National security, and an expert on China. Good morning, Bill.

Gertz: Hi. Good to be on the show.

Leahy: Well, we’re three to four months into the Biden administration. How is the Biden administration doing in terms of foreign policy?

Gertz: Well, it’s still a work in progress. They’re kind of getting their people in positions. They’ve got Tony Blinken the Secretary of State is kind of leading the foreign policy effort there Lloyd Austin at the Pentagon. I think it’s they’re battling now. The agenda is not so much between Democrats and Republicans, but between Liberal Democrats and radical Democrats in terms of policy fights.

The bright spot is that the China threat, which, again, is my big issue with things that I’ve written books about and in The Washington Times about is that the Trump administration pretty well boxed in the new Biden administration on a lot of China issues. So they’re really doing pretty much a lot of the things that the Trump administration was doing. Take Taiwan, for example.

Right now, we’ve got a real threat. The Chinese are stepping up tensions with Taiwan. They appear to be testing the Biden administration. And then on the other side of the world, the Russians are also testing the Biden administration by saber-rattling against Ukraine. So it’s going to be an interesting few weeks going forward to see how those two hot spots play out.

Leahy: The big news foreign policy-wise yesterday was President Biden’s announcement that the United States will be withdrawing entirely from Afghanistan. We’ve been there almost 20 years now, I guess 18 years. It’s not seemed to of made much progress. But is this a wise move? Will it create a power void in that area?

Gertz: Well, I think this is going to pit the political leadership and the Biden administration against the military. The military’s view is that we’re not done. We can’t leave now because the threat posed by the Taliban remains. I think it’s the right choice. I mean, if you’re not winning, you’re losing and they’ve been losing there. We don’t have a department of nation-building in the U.S government.

And the military, their job is to fight and win wars. You’ve got a low-level insurgency now. The Taliban controls quite a bit of territory in Afghanistan. So timing the departure to September 11th, though it may not be a good idea because it’s going to give the enemy a chance to just delay things and really step up its activities.

It’s not looking good for Afghanistan I can tell you that. The government there, I think it’s got problems with corruption and problems with governance. Afghanistan is not really a nation. It’s a bunch of tribes that are often fighting. And now you’ve got the Taliban to deal with. It’s a terrorist organization.

Leahy: What about the symbolism of selecting September 11th as a day to leave? That struck me as an odd choice by the Biden administration.

Gertz: Yes. I don’t know where that came from, but again, certainly, 9/11 was one of the reasons we went in there because Al Qaeda had managed to operate from redoubts within Afghanistan. There are still terrorist groups there. ISIS is there and Al Qaeda’s there. But according to the latest intelligence assessment that was just released this week by the office of the Director of National Intelligence, the terrorist threat is there, but it’s been degraded significantly by years of U.S military activities. A lot of our special operations people have been doing excellent work and really making the terrorist threat diminished.

Leahy: Is the Biden administration’s decision to leave Afghanistan, is that any different than what President Trump would have done had he been reelected?

Gert: Yeah. President Trump had tried to do that and kind of ran into opposition from the military leadership. The military’s view on it is basically no military leader wants to be the last one to say, hey, we didn’t win. And we’ve spent a lot of treasure and lives trying to solve this problem of Afghanistan. I think pretty much Trump definitely was trying to get out and the military push back. I think it was General Mattis when he was the Secretary of Defense. He quit in protest over the decision to pull out of Syria, where we have special ops people working there.

Leahy: In retrospect, was that war ever winnable?

Gertz: Well, I guess it was if there was a way to establish a stable Afghan government. And again, we spent trillions of dollars trying to do that. And yet it’s just a really difficult problem. Nation-building is not easy to do.

Leahy: Absolutely. Let me ask you this question about the difference between state and defense now. So we had Mike Pompeo, very powerful. I thought he was very much aligned with President Trump’s policies. And now we have this fellow who’s last name is Blinken. Tony Blinken. So he doesn’t seem to be a very powerful figure. He seems to be kind of a return to, I don’t know Jimmy Carter type foreign policy. Am I giving the guy a short trip there? Is there more to him than that?

Gertz: I don’t really know him, but I do know his background. He’s basically a Senate staffer, so he doesn’t bring a lot of vision and a lot of individual thought and strategy to the position. As you mentioned, I think Mike Pompeo is one of the best Secretaries of State that the U.S has had, especially when it comes to China.

He did groundbreaking work in really reorienting the entire U.S government position on dealing with the threat from China. Tony Blinken has inherited that and hasn’t really moved to change it. Again he’s adopting a lot of the Liberal left policies and climate change and personnel diversity. I don’t know how that’s going to affect American foreign policy.

It’s kind of one of those political issues, but so far, he has done pretty well on the China threat. And one thing I would give him credit for was he did not back down from the legal designation by the State Department of genocide by China of the ethnic Uhygers in the Western part of China. And I think I’d give him credit for that.

Leahy: I’m trying to figure out what on earth is going on at the top levels of the Department of Defense. The way it’s operating seems to me to be so woke, so progressive, so interested in equity and diversity and so disinterested in winning wars. This is just my view. What’s the story with Lloyd Austin, the new Secretary of Defense?

Gertz: Yeah, he’s basically following the Biden plan which is the new issue that the Pentagon is doing. They did what they call a stand down on extremism in the military. This is really a red herring issue. There’s not a lot of extremists. There may be a very small percentage of people, but it’s not a big problem and yet they’ve tried to make it a huge problem.

And they forced every military and defense component in the Defense Department to do a so-called stand down on extremism which is ill-defined. They haven’t defined it. And it looks to a lot of critics, I included, that this is some kind of a political purge to try and politicize the military, which has traditionally been a very conservative institution.

Listen to the full first hour here:

– – –

Tune in weekdays from 5:00 – 8:00 a.m. to the Tennessee Star Report with Michael Patrick Leahy on Talk Radio 98.3 FM WLAC 1510. Listen online at iHeart Radio

 

 

 

 

 

Crom Carmichael Examines Foreign Economic Development with Dictators and Lobbyist Cronies and Predicts a Republican 2022 Candidate

Crom Carmichael Examines Foreign Economic Development with Dictators and Lobbyist Cronies and Predicts a Republican 2022 Candidate

 

Live from Music Row Wednesday morning on The Tennessee Star Report with Michael Patrick Leahy – broadcast on Nashville’s Talk Radio 98.3 and 1510 WLAC weekdays from 5:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. – host Leahy welcomed the original all-star panelist Crom Carmichael to the studio to weigh in on economic foreign development cronyism and lobbyists while speculating who the Republican presidential candidate for 2022 will be.

Leahy: We are joined in studio by the original All-Star panelist, Crom Carmichael. Crom, former Secretary State Mike Pompeo was a featured speaker, a surprise speaker, actually at Liberty University’s Equity for Africa Conference. And The Star News Network had a reporter there who provided an exclusive report from Lynchburg, Virginia. He was introduced by former Congressman Dave Brat, a friend of ours.

And he was very very warmly welcomed. And here’s what he had to say about Africa. Pompeo said, greater business development improves security for all of us. It’s a collective set of security issues that are threatening not only Africa but the Northern part of Africa through the Middle East. We always knew that if we got the business development right and did so in an atmosphere that allows all the people of Africa to reap the benefits of that development through greater freedom that America would be a better place too. This is sort of his pushback against the Chinese incursions into Africa.

Carmichael: Well, the Chinese are clearly aggressive in many areas of the world. Especially Africa. And most of it is for mining its raw materials and natural resources and especially targeted to what are called rare earth minerals. And rare earth metals are needed for electric cars. They’re needed for chips, they’re needed for high technology.

And the Chinese want to corner that market. And so they’re going after that very very aggressively. The Trump administration tried to build bridges with other countries through economic deals that, as Pompeo says, our business relationships create wealth and are spread because of the value of the work that’s being done.

Democrats tend to give money away rather than focus on building business interests. They’re more interested in giving money away. You see where Kamala Harris is now apparently trying to give money to Guatemala so that Guatemala can then offer money to people to not come to the United States.

Leahy: Here’s how that works. When the United States “gives money” to foreign governments, it does not go to any economic development.

Carmichael: No it doesn’t.

Leahy: It goes to the dictators and the cronies. And so they become richer. It’s a transfer of wealth from American taxpayers to dictators in foreign countries.

Carmichael: Well, not just that. It emboldens and empowers the dictators that allow them to continue to be tyrants. And so it’s a sad thing to watch. And much of it is kickbacks to cronies within the United States.

Leahy: Cronies that are doing business with the dictators.

Carmichael: Make no mistake that these dictators have lobbyists. Those lobbyists get lots of money. And so if the lobbyists can get $50 million to be given to a dictator in some small country, that lobbyist charges perhaps three to $5 million for the work they do over a period of two or three years. So it’s not designed to create wealth for the society in question. It is designed to circulate money to the cronies. And that has been going on, especially with the Democrat Party for generations.

Leahy: Let me pose this question to you, Crom. I look at it and we’ve got a very dangerous year and a half ahead with Democrats in control of the executive branch.

Carmichael: We hope only a year and a half.

Leahy: Yeah, we hope only a year and a half. But the answer is going to have to be that the Republicans take back either the United States House of Representatives or the U.S. Senate and or both. Now my question to you is a lot of people and politicos look at the horse race, who’s going to be the Republican nominee.

That’s, like three and a half years from now. It’s too far even to imagine, right? Let me pose this. Of these three people, which one is going to likely be more effective at helping Republicans win back the House of Representatives in November ’22? Would it be Donald Trump, B, Governor Ron DeSantis of Florida, or C, former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo?

Carmichael: I think depending on the race. First of all, I can’t imagine any Republican running for a House seat or a Senate seat, even as an incumbent who wouldn’t want any of those three to come campaign for them. Because as time passes, a lot of the public is looking saying, maybe I screwed up when I voted for Biden over Trump.

Leahy: Asterisk.

Carmichael: I don’t think so. Let me say this. I don’t think there are any people. I’d say there are virtually no people who voted for Trump who said, boy, I made a mistake. Biden is doing a great job. And so when you get into the midterms, as more time passes, and we see more of this just having money in wheel barrels towards special interests out of Washington. And then we see the tax bill when it comes through. And we see all of the stuff that the Democrats are doing. I think that Trump will be able to speak very clearly and DeSantis and Pompeo will be very strong.

Leahy: Part of that team.

Listen to the full third hour here:

– – –

Tune in weekdays from 5:00 – 8:00 a.m. to the Tennessee Star Report with Michael Patrick Leahy on Talk Radio 98.3 FM WLAC 1510. Listen online at iHeart Radio.
Photo “Xi Jinping” by Narendra Modi. CC BY 2.0.

 

 

 

 

Host Leahy and Carmichael Examine Democratic Mobster Mentality, China, and the Co-Opting of America

Host Leahy and Carmichael Examine Democratic Mobster Mentality, China, and the Co-Opting of America

 

Live from Music Row Monday morning on The Tennessee Star Report with Michael Patrick Leahy – broadcast on Nashville’s Talk Radio 98.3 and 1510 WLAC weekdays from 5:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. –  host Leahy welcomed the original all-star panelist Crom Carmichael to the studio to outline how Democrat’s continue to chip away at American’s individual freedoms and China’s clever co-opting of its institutions and politicians.

Leahy: Crom, if there’s a bad idea, the United States House of Representatives, led by Nancy Pelosi, is certain to pass it.

Carmichael: It really is amazing, of course, now she has an agenda. And as I’ve said many times, I’m going to repeat myself yet again, the Democrat Party has become the party of government. And so her agenda is to give the government more power and to make as many people as possible feel beholden to the government. So everything she does is to further the power of government. And to weaken. And by the way, in to weaken the rights of the individual.

Leahy: Absolutely. The House last week on Tuesday passed a bill and sent it to the Senate where hopefully it’s going to die. But we’ll see. That was based on this very bad California law that in essence, outlawed independent contractors, destroying the gig economy. Now it passed in California. There’s an article at Reason Magazine about this. In November, California approved a ballot initiative that vetoed parts of that very bad bill that outlawed independent contractors. The question is, why are Democrats in Congress trying to force those rules down the throat of the entire country? That’s what Reason said.

Carmichael: The answer is that Democrats in general, but particularly liberal Democrats hate right-to-work laws because they want everybody to be a member of a union so that they then have to pay dues. And then 98 percent of all union dues go to Democrats. And the unions also then are able through forced union dues to employ people who are working politics on a full-time basis.

Leahy: On a full-time basis. Let me just elaborate on that Crom. You said something very important. This is a problem here that we face, left versus right in America. If you’re a left-wing, Marxist, neo-Marxist agitator and you want to be full-time employed working to destroy America, you just put your hand up. And there are just 100s of nonprofit organizations funded by anti-American left-wing billionaires. They’ll give you a job.

Carmicheal: Or unions.

Leahy: Or unions.

Carmichael: Because there are all kinds of people who work for unions who do nothing but political stuff.

Leahy: And on our side, here’s how it works. This is the disadvantage conservatives face. And everybody in our listing audience says, yeah, yeah. They look around and every time you turn around, there’s this huge push to do something really stupid left-wing. And the question is, well, where are our people pushing back? Well, most of our people are working.

Carmichael: Yeah.

Leahy: Right? And so they have to do part-time, and they don’t have the billionaires on the right. They don’t fund conservative causes in the way the billionaires on the left do.

Carmichael: Well, they’re not nearly as many billionaires on the right either.

Leahy: That’s a sad fact but true.

Carmichael: I would say that 80 to 90 percent of the billionaires are supporting left-leaning organizations. And I think they do that out of their own self-interest.

Leahy: It is self-interest because they don’t want the left coming after them for their money.

Carmichael: Right.

Leahy: So on that list of leftist billionaires, Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, Warren Buffett. Terrible.

Carmichael: Warren Buffett figured that out a long time ago.

Leahy: He figured that out a long time at how you protect himself.

Carmichael: He figured out that the best way to protect Warren Buffett is to claim he should be paying more taxes, but then not follow through by paying more taxes all on his own, just to show that he really means it.

Leahy: He doesn’t pay that much in taxes. And he takes advantage of every tax law. Although he writes these editorials, (Wimpy voice) “I should be paying more.” He doesn’t pay more. He’s a hypocrite. All you Warren Buffest fans, you can invest in Berkshire Hathaway and make a lot of money but the guy is a hypocrite.

Carmichael: And this is why big business now is giving most of its money to Democrats is they’re doing it as a way to protect themselves. It really is as I told you, I’ve been watching this series on mobsters. And in the olden days, one of the things that mobsters did was they just took money from small retailers and in a particular area as protection money, saying, if you don’t get me the money, people will rob you or burn your store out or something like that. So if you give me money, I’ll protect you. That’s what’s happening now is that if you want to be a protected company and if you say something that is mildly conservative, for example, I hope the people of Hong Kong remain free.

Leahy: Yeah. Something controversial like that.

Carmichael: If you say something like that, then you’ll lose your job.

Leahy: Especially if you’re in the NBA.

Carmichael: Yes. But I’m saying virtually anywhere that if you stand up and generally as a business or as a CEO if you come out for freedom of the individual and if you say negative things about China, there’s a very good chance that you’ll lose your job. So that’s true.

Leahy: That is a true statement.

Carmichael: That is a true statement because the amount of money that the Chinese have figured out is that you can buy people. And if you buy people in power, then you can extort all the rest by having them fear the people in power. And so that’s what the Chinese have figured out how to do. The Soviets never did it because they never had the money to do it.

Leahy: Chinese have the money. Chinese have the money and were the ones who gave it to them.

Leahy: Yep. Just gave it to them. You look back and this whole theory, it was sort of a Kissinger Nixon philosophy, right? The opening of China. If we show them the wonders of capitalism, they will then adopt Western civilization values.

Carmichael: They’ll become more like us. And that turned out to be false.

Leahy: Totally false. In fact, they used our freedom. They used our liberties. They used our system to their advantage. And they are manipulating us right now.

Carmichael: Yeah. And we spend our money on far away wars. And they don’t spend any money on far away wars. They spend their money on when they’re far away is building their economic base. They are all over Africa, for example. But they’re not all over Africa with soldiers. They’re all over Africa with engineers and money. And they co-op. And then they co-op the local government so that those local cut so that those countries, more or less, become a subsidiary.

Leahy: Exactly. It’s modern mercantilism, but very clever. What they’ll do is they’ll go into an underdeveloped country, and they say we are going to put up the money to build your ports.

Carmichael: Yes.

Leahy: We’re going to build the money to build your roads. That money has a little catch to it. High-interest rates. And if you don’t do what we want, we’re going to call the money.

Carmichael: Well, and not only high-interest rates, but we then have the right to come into your country and operate mines or do what we want to exploit your natural resource.

Leahy: Exactly.

Carmichael: In other words, they go into the countries that have natural resources, and then they take advantage of the fact that they’ve co-opted the government. Now, in co-opting the government, they greatly enrich the people who run those governments. They have a very good understanding of human nature and how to exploit that aspect of human nature. Our left-wingers understand it. And our left-wingers, by the way, get very rich. I’ve got all kinds of stories here about people in government that are enriching themselves while they claim to be public servants.

Leahy: Well, the problem going on with China right now in essence, they have a very sophisticated 21st-century colonialism. But actually, they provide fewer protections for those that they are colonizing than the British did or the other Europeans did back in the 19th century.

Carmichael: They go in, and they co-opt entire governments by enriching a few people at the top and then providing them with all the support they need to remain in power.

Leahy: They’ve done a lot of that here in the United States as well.

Carmichael: Yes. All these Confucius Institutes around the country. So they’re co-opting higher education. They’re co-opting Hollywood. They’re co-opting the entire entertainment industry. They’ve co-opted our politicians. Many of our politicians have been co-opted. And then they’ve co-opted big business and Big Tech.

Leahy: Big time. Big time.

Listen to the full third hour here:

– – –

Tune in weekdays from 5:00 – 8:00 a.m. to the Tennessee Star Report with Michael Patrick Leahy on Talk Radio 98.3 FM WLAC 1510. Listen online at iHeart Radio

 

 

 

 

Retired Brigadier Gen. Robert Spalding Talks National Security, China and the Sinister Reality of 5G

Retired Brigadier Gen. Robert Spalding Talks National Security, China and the Sinister Reality of 5G

 

Live from Music Row Tuesday morning on The Tennessee Star Report with Michael Patrick Leahy – broadcast on Nashville’s Talk Radio 98.3 and 1510 WLAC weekdays from 5:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. –  host Leahy welcomed General Robert Spalding to the newsmakers line.

During the first hour, Spalding described his role on the National Security Council staff under the Trump administration where he analyzed challenges America faces from countries like China, Russia, Iran and North Korea. He later explained how part of his job specifically consisted of three pillars of national security strategy to protect, rebuild, and inspire other countries to adopt democratic principles. Towards the end of the segment, Spalding went into more detail on 5G uses and dangers.

Leahy: We are joined now on our newsmaker line by retired Brigadier General Robert Spalding with the Hudson Institute and an expert on China. Good morning General Spalding.

Spalding: Hello. Good morning.

Leahy: We’re very glad you are with us. I read your bio. What an interesting background you have. You served in the Trump administration on the National Security Council and you’re an expert on China. You lived in Beijing and served as an attache to the U.S. Embassy there. Is that right?

Spalding: That’s correct. Yes. I was in the first year of the Trump administration as a senior director for strategy and was the chief architect for our current national security strategy.

Leahy: So the National Security Council, what relationship did you have on the National Security Council to the I don’t know a long string of National Security advisors like Flynn briefly, McMaster for a period of time, and then subsequently John Bolton and I guess who’s the next fellow? Robert O’Brien?

Spalding: Right. I was there when McMaster was there. During the first year while he was there.

Leahy: And what is the relationship between the national security advisor and the National Security Council?

Spalding: So the National Security Council is actually an official board of advisers to the president. So it consists of cabinet secretaries like the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of the Treasury and the Secretary of State. And in addition, it has the senior advisor on the military and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs. So these advise the president. And so when you say there’s a meeting of the National Security Council, it’s really referring to those cabinet positions and the president himself. Anything less than that would be considered the National Security Council staff meeting.

Leahy: And so how many members are there on the national security staff?

Spalding: Oh, gosh, I don’t know off the top of my head right now. But I know that the Secretary of Defense, Secretary of State, Secretary of Treasury, the National Security Advisor, the president, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs and there may be one or two others. And the vice president I think.

Leahy: What was your job there at the National Security Council? Would you write reports and give them to the National Security Advisor and then he’d bring them to the president? Was that what your job was?

Spalding: That’s correct but there are people that did that and certainly I did some of that but my main job there, I was brought in to really educate the National Security Council staff on the challenges we face from countries like China primarily, but also other authoritarian regimes like Russia, Iran, and North Korea. And my job was to essentially structure the National Security strategy and to provide the pillars of what we were going to do as a government to push back against these challenges.

Leahy: And how effective would you say we have been at push pushing back against those challenges? And in particular, the multiple challenges represented by the Chinese Communist Party and the Chinese government?

Spalding: Well, so I would say that we’ve been partially successful. There’s a lot more to do. And the partial success we’ve had if you consider that the National Security strategy has roughly three pillars. The first is to protect. And that’s really to protect our civil institutions in the United States from influence from regimes like the Chinese Communist Party.

I would say that President Trump was very successful at that. The second pillar is rebuilding the country. I would say that we had less success there. And that’s really investing in our infrastructure, our manufacturing, our science and technology, stem education, and our critical infrastructure like secure internet. I think we’ve been only partially successful there.

And maybe even less so than in the protect. And then the final pillar is really about inspiring other countries to want to embrace Democratic principles. And the way that we do that is by growing our economic prosperity in the United States as a shining beacon as our citizens are able to reach their true potential. And then using the excess that we generate to help other nations similarly develop. We did that during the Cold War to great success, but we’ve been less so since as we’ve been more focused on say military interventionism abroad.

Leahy: Well according to press reports you had a very particular view on the next level of telecommunications infrastructure. The so-called 5G Network, which is in various levels of development around the world. And there’s a report that out that you authored an internal study which recommended that the United States federal government overtake the development of a 5G work infrastructure.

And I guess the argument there was for national security reasons. The reports are that that was leaked and after that was leaked you were removed from the National Security Council and went back to the Air Force. Do I have that right?

Spalding: That’s the correct storyline that came out by the media. (Leahy chuckles) Of course, that was not the report that I wrote. In fact, you can read the report. It’s posted online where that article came out from Axios.

Leahy: Yeah. I read the Axios article. You knew where that came from because I took that exactly from a report in Axios, which is not exactly what you might call a conservative fact friendly news outlets sometimes.

Spalding: Well, and in fact, I called the reporter himself before that story was posted and I said there was no intent to nationalize anything. I was doing a report on the opportunities and challenges and in particular how the United States might protect its citizens from the predations of countries, like China, Iran, North Korea, and Russia.

And of course, it was turned into sensationalism and the idea that the Trump administration which of course is preposterous because you know the president didn’t tell me to do it. Nobody really told me to do it. I did it as part of my job as part of the National Security Council staff to really educate the cabinet secretaries and the National Security Advisor.

Leahy: So you have experience with many of us in the conservative world have experienced. Information twisted in a certain way to reflect badly on either you or the Trump administration. And once that story gets out, it’s out there and you have to deal with it.

Spalding: That’s correct. I actually believed it was a good thing because what it did was informed people who read the report. And by the way, that report was read by nations all over the world. And in fact, it has led to policy changes and as you know, the government eventually came over to my point of view as they realized that what I wrote in that report was essentially correct and that is that 5G is a pathway to collecting data on the citizens of a free society and to use that data to influence them in ways that are counter to their interests.

Leahy: Yeah, that’s exactly the way it looks to me. Again, I’m not a technical guy. I’ve heard 5G and I’ve heard it described as the next level of telecommunications infrastructure for those of us in our listening audience who like me have never heard about it and don’t really know what it is. What does 5G mean and what level of development is it currently in?

Spalding: Well, I think what’s been portrayed by the telecommunications industry in the United States is that it’s a faster smartphone. In fact, it has really nothing to do with smartphones at all. It has to do with smart cities and what that means is in a 5G world you don’t have a smartphone. In fact, the city itself tracks you with cameras and microphones, and other sensors.

And you use that tracking to get things that you want the same way you use your smartphone today. And I’ll give you an example. Today If you want an Uber you pull out your phone you open an app and call an Uber. In a 5G world, you just say I want an Uber. A camera does facial recognition. It reads your lips or a microphone and then picks up your voice and recognizes you and then sends a car. That’s what 5G is. It’s really the ability that the city has and in the surrounding areas to track you and then to use that tracking to provide you services. That’s why it’s so dangerous for democracy unless it’s encrypted and secured.

Leahy: This scares the tar out of me.

Spalding: Well, that’s what China is building in China and Huawei was seeking to do outside of China. Now the fundamental problem we have with the way that we’ve gone about attacking this is that we said well if we just don’t use Chinese companies to build these networks it will be okay. No. China has essentially dominated the standards-making body internationally for telecommunications.

That means any company working in those international bodies, companies like Verizon, AT&T, Erickson, Nokia, and Cisco also have to abide by those standards and the patented technology that the Chinese have used to dominate the industry. You are getting the same thing.

Listen to the full first hour here:


– – –

Tune in weekdays from 5:00 – 8:00 a.m. to the Tennessee Star Report with Michael Patrick Leahy on Talk Radio 98.3 FM WLAC 1510. Listen online at iHeart Radio