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










The Washington Times Correspondent and Author Bill Gertz Weighs in on the Threat of China in a Biden Administration

The Washington Times Correspondent and Author Bill Gertz Weighs in on the Threat of China in a Biden Administration


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 the threat of China in a Biden administration.

Leahy: We are joined now on our newsmaker line by the man who I believe is the greatest correspondent on national security issues in America. The great Bill Gertz of The Washington Times. Bill, welcome to The Tennessee Star Report.

Gertz: Hi! It’s good to be on the program.

Leahy: You’ve written so much on this bill my big question for you is, we’re in the first full day of the Biden administration are we on a path now with Joe Biden as president where American foreign policy interests will be subverted to the interest of the Communist Chinese Party?

Gertz: Well, that’s the big question. The Biden administration is really kind of an Obama administration 2.0. But I think one area where they’re going to have a hard time going back to those Obama policies is the issue of China. I think it’s been made clear even by the people that President Biden has picked that China poses the greatest threat to U.S. National Security.

The difference will be from the Trump administration on how to handle that and how to respond to it. And I think we’ll get more conciliatory policies. I think the Wall Street influence again wanting to trade with China as opposed to confronted on a lot of these technology thefts and cyber issues. It’s going to be where the differences are that we’ll be seeing.

Leahy: One of the last acts of the Trump administration Secretary of State Mike Pompeo issued a report about the Chinese Communist Party’s efforts. He called them crimes against humanity and genocide in placing one million Uyghurs in camps. And this was the main thrust of the last week of the Trump administration. What will the Biden administration do to help protect the human rights of Uyghurs in China?

Gertz: Well that’s going to be another issue looking at the new the incoming Secretary of State Antony Blinken. He has said in his confirmation hearing this week in the Senate that he supports the designation of genocide against China. The point I’m interested to see is how the Chinese will react. The designation has been underway and the process for an exhaustive investigation into the crimes that were committed.

And as you mentioned they’ve incarcerated over a million Uyghurs. They’ve conducted four sterilizations. They’re really trying to destroy an entire ethnic minority group in western China through these policies. The question is will the pressure on China be great enough for them to back down? And it doesn’t seem to be that way.

The current Chinese leader is Xi Jinping sees himself as kind of a reborn Mao Zedong, the founder of communist China. And he’s taking a hardline communist approach on all of these human rights issues. And it’s not just Jinping. Now we see that they’ve destroyed democracy in Hong Kong which the Chinese government promised to allow a separate legal system.

A separate Democratic legal system for another 40 years or so. But they’ve gone back on that. I think it remains to be seen. As I said, I think the Trump administration really put down the marker and it’s going to be hard to go back to the appeasement policies of the Obama administration and earlier administrations.

Leahy: But you know, I look at this and I see nothing but appeasement coming forward. I guess you’re you are a little bit more optimistic about the Biden administration responding strongly to these Chinese efforts. What will be the first test of the Biden administration will?

Gertz: Yeah, I think the situation regarding China is somewhat dangerous in my view and the Chinese could precipitate some crisis with the United States. And I think one of the biggest flashpoints right now in Taiwan. The Chinese have been threatening Taiwan. Threatening to use military force to retake the island which has a separate system. And the U.S. is somewhat obligated to defend Taiwan.

We have the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act, which says the U.S. will prevent or participate in preventing the forcible takeover of Taiwan by the mainland. The Chinese have been taking advantage of the political discord in the U.S. and they’ve been making a lot of threatening noises. They’ve been conducting very intrusive aerial surveillance of Taiwan. They could trigger some crisis by trying to steal some islands off the edge of China that belong to Taiwan now, I think that’s the place where everyone has to watch closely.

The sources that I talked to in the Trump administration just a few days ago said that the U.S. intelligence community is closely watching every tiny move by the Chinese military because if they do something militarily against Taiwan they have to prepare for it and there would be indications we could see with our spy satellites or aircraft.

Leahy: You know, I am not a foreign policy expert but I look at this and what you tell me here’s the scenario I see. I see China being very very aggressive in every area politically, militarily, and economically. And when the moment is right, I think it’s highly likely they will take those islands near Taiwan. And I think it is quite likely that the Biden administration will do nothing and let them take those islands and then let them take Taiwan. I don’t see the Biden administration pushing back. Tell me why my worst-case scenario might be wrong.

Gertz: Well in my Washington Times column today, I write a weekly column called Inside the Ring. I talked about this. And one preview that we saw is a recent article in a foreign policy journal by Jake Sullivan. He’s going to be the new White House National Security advisor under Biden. And he talked extensively about the need to strengthen alliances as something that he claims the Trump administration didn’t do which they actually did. And if we intend to have a policy with strong alliances, there’s no way the Biden administration could allow China to do anything toward the island of Taiwan.

Leahy: Well, we’ll see. I hope your more optimistic view of how the Biden administration will react is the one we end up with. But we’ll see. Again, I just look at this politically. How are you seeing the allies you mentioned that Jake Sullivan wants to develop ties with? How are they responding to this new Biden administration? And will they join with us if China becomes very aggressive?

Gertz: Yeah, that’s a big question. If the Biden administration adopts some form of the Obama policy which was characterized as leading from behind. In other words not taking the lead, then we’ll have real problems. If they continue the policy of taking the lead on confronting China and pressuring China. I think a good start has been what the Trump administration has done in creating the so-called quad.

India, Australia, Japan, and the United States are big regional powers that basically can encircle China and really show through their unity that they’re not going to allow China to become a regional hegemon that is to bully other nations. Whether it’s in the South China Sea or whether it’s Taiwan or whether it’s Japan or whether it’s the Senkaku Islands which are the small islands north of Taiwan. So I think that will be the key thing. If the U.S. can hold together this newly formed quad alliance, that will be a big step in really dealing with the China threat in my view.

Leahy: When was that quad alliance formed?

Gertz: It’s an informal alliance. It’s not a formal alliance like NATO. But it was something that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo who I think has shown himself to be one of the best secretaries of state that the United States has ever had. he was able to get these together. And another point is that India and Japan and Australia could be much more concerned about the China threat and how to respond to it than a Biden administration which again may take a more appeasement-oriented policy. So in one sense, those three allies could push the Biden administration to do more on the China front.

Leahy: When we come back, we’ll have more with Bill Gertz the National Security correspondent with The Washington Times and the author of several fantastic books on China. We’ll talk more with Bill Gertz after the break.

Listen to the full interview 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











Co-Founder and Director of the Prague Strategic Studies Institute Roger Robinson Outlines China’s Threat to America’s U.S. Capital Markets

Co-Founder and Director of the Prague Strategic Studies Institute Roger Robinson Outlines China’s Threat to America’s U.S. Capital Markets


Live from Music Row Friday 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 Roger Robinson, co-founder and director of the Prague Strategic Studies, Institute to the newsmakers line.

At the top of the second hour, Robinson described the myriad of threats facing American values and individuals’ financial portfolios due to the lack of our government to perform due diligence with the Chinese participation of U.S. capital markets. He later outlined how a Biden administration could undo President Trump’s Executive Order 13959 on military companies being excluded from American investment and that he would then be painted as being in the pocket of Wall Street and Chinese leadership.

Leahy: We’re joined now by our good friend Roger Robinson. He’s currently the co-founder and director of the Prague Strategic Studies Institute in Washington D.C. He served as the Senior Director of International Economic Affairs in the Reagan NASA Security Council Council from 2001 to 2006. He was chairman of the Congressional U.S. China Economic Security Review Commission.

And now he heads up a group that provides its data services research and risk management information to those looking at assessing Chinese and Russian risk factors particularly with regards to their presence in U.S. capital markets. Welcome to The Tennessee Star Report, Roger.

Robinson: Thank you, Michael.

Leahy: So you’re going to tell us about something that our listeners will be scratching their head when you tell us the details that currently our capital markets allow special privileges to Chinese companies where they don’t have to comply with our securities and financial reporting information and giving them a comparative advantage. Describe what they currently do and what you have done to help create the background for these executive orders that the President has put in place and that are now in jeopardy.

Robinson: Well Michael, it’s a very sad case really of neglect and malfeasance. For over 20 years China has enjoyed unfettered and unimpeded access to our stock and bond markets, and our so-called capital markets. And they have been able to raise in that period in the trillions of dollars from unwitting American investors. And many of them listeners on your program.

And there are probably 160 or so million Americans who are in this unknowing category of holding with their investment and retirement dollars in Chinese companies that are known to be involved with the people’s liberation army. Advanced weapons manufacturers. Those companies that are equipping concentration camps in Sinkiang China holding over a million Muslim minority Uyghurs and other beleaguered religious minorities.

And I think the American people would be stunned to learn that we as a government have not taken any steps to screen the types of companies that are enjoying and raising money in our capital markets to bring back to the Chinese Communist Party to strengthen it. And there hasn’t been as I say any so-called due diligence performed and worse still as you pointed out not one of those companies is compliant with U.S. federal security’s laws.

None of them have been through government audits like that of the public company accounting oversight board activities and diligence that is required of American companies. But the Chinese are in violation of those laws that are designed to protect our investors. And yet we’ve turned a blind eye and we’ve given them this preferential treatment.

It’s just inexplicable. But on top of the investor protection problem, as I say you have major national security and human rights concerns as well. And all of this is being financed by average Americans because of Wall Street greed and unwillingness on their part to even look at these categories of material risk.

Leahy: Tell us about the president’s executive order designed to address this and where that stands now.

Robinson: Well, the president has done a couple of very important and even historic things in this connection. For example, the federal thrift savings Plan back in March of this past year was going to add a number of these malevolent Chinese companies to the portfolios of 5.7 million federal employees in their retirement plans.

Anybody that was going to in anything international would automatically be invested in these Chinese companies because of the index that they were going to use that contains them. So luckily we worked on this with the president for a good nine months and two weeks before it was to be enacted and in effect complete, he stepped in and stopped it dead in his tracks and said this isn’t happening on my watch. Later on, there was a unanimous passage by the Senate and the House to stop this preferential treatment and to basically tell the Chinese companies and their Wall Street supporters that they were going to be delisted from the U.S. exchanges if they didn’t comply with federal securities laws.

(Commercial break)

Leahy: Roger, there is a report in Reuters on December 31, and I just want to read it to you and get your reaction. The New York Stock Exchange is starting the process of delisting securities of three Chinese telecommunications companies after President Trump last month barred U.S. investments in Chinese firms Washington says are controlled or owned by the military. What’s your reaction to that Roger?

Robinson: Well, this has been an extraordinary case. The president, fortunately, took us sweeping action in November by issuing an executive order that basically said that those companies that are on a list generated by the Pentagon as having ties to the Chinese military. It’s the People’s Liberation Army would not be permitted to receive any American investment from individuals or institutions anywhere in the world beginning January 11. Which is coming right up of around the corner and that they need to be fully divested of such Chinese military companies by November 11 of this year.

Which gives folks a chance to wind down the portfolios without undue losses. Now when that happened Wall Street finally reacted after sloughing this off and ignoring presidential concerns for the better part of a year and a half. You see that the New York Stock Exchange first decided to divest these three big telecom companies that are on the New York Stock Exchange and listed there.

Then they listened to Treasury whisper in their ear and then reversed it if you can believe it and said that they were going to relist them. And finally, the White House intervened and they made a third decision to delist them again which is where things stand now. That’s the level of resistance on Wall Street to this kind of thing. Other funds are delisting some of these companies but very very slowly.

And they’re waiting to see if the treasury can basically emasculate or otherwise negate this presidential order which they’re working very hard to do I’m sad to say. And also that the Biden administration could come in and try to reverse this and give China the kind of free lunch program with hundreds of billions and even trillions of our dollars to help support the Chinese Communist Party, human rights abuses, and its Advance weapons Systems and military buildup.

Leahy: Roger. What is the likelihood in your opinion that Joe Biden is going to basically revoke the president’s executive order on this?

Robinson: Well, just remember this. I mean normally I would be extremely concerned and I am to be sure because of this soft on China reputation that he’s shown in the South China Sea when we permitted those illegal islands in the South China Sea to be built and terrorized by China on the Obama-Biden watch.

So he has a very poor track record with China as you know. Not to mention his family connections which are a big problem there. So there’s a lot to be concerned about. But on the positive side, this anti-China feeling which is earned by Beijing richly is now a bipartisan feeling in America. It’s almost quite unique in that regard. We witnessed the unanimous House and Senate actions trying to protect American investors from these malevolent Chinese companies.

So I think that if he were to rescind the president’s order and if he tries to dilute it and basically water it down so that it’s no longer effective he is basically saying or would be saying that he is in effect supportive of the American people unwittingly funding. For example, ICBMs targeting their families and the building of those.

Leahy: Intercontinental ballistic missiles.

Robinson: Correct. And he would be for owning the shares of Chinese companies that are equipping and making possible concentration camps that are holding over a million as I said beleaguered Uyghurs and the surveillance state. All of those human rights abuses. the repression of Hong Kong. These are the things that they’re doing with our money. And it would be an utter outrage if the new administration comes in and has basically says that’s okay with me in order to placate and protect Wall Street fees and greed and the vital interests of Beijing and not our own.

Leahy: Let me ask you this. Has Chuck Schumer who’s about to become the majority leader in the Senate it looks like depending on the outcome. Kelly Loeffler has conceded. So that makes it what 52-49. And right now Perdue hasn’t conceded but he’s behind significantly against John Ossoff. Let’s say they’re both in and it’s a 50-50 Senate on January 20. And Kamala Harris is named vice president. Do you have any indication that Chuck Schumer or Nancy Pelosi agree with you or do they agree with the Chinese on this?

Robinson: They have to watch their step very carefully because this is not an abstract issue. This is literally the hard-earned retirement and investment dollars of roughly 170 million Americans including any of your listeners with an investment portfolio. So when they turn a blind eye to this they are implicating indeed half or roughly half of our country in this kind of funding of activities perilous to our well-being and the undermining of everything we hold dear.

So I think that they’ll be careful about this. They’ll use technical means. they’ll do watered-down loopholes. They’ll do dilutions. And I don’t put it past Senate majority leader Schumer if this comes to pass. And further he is from New York after all and Wall Street has tens of billions trillions of dollars on the line here that are implicated in this China portfolio. There’s going to be the most ferocious lobbying and more money spent trying to negate our efforts on the capital markets because Michael this is the area of China’s single greatest vulnerability, which is dollar financing.

And our single greatest strength, our capital markets are the size of the rest of the worlds combined. we have over 60 percent of the world’s liquidity. Our dollar is the world’s reserve currency. We have an utter dominant position in global finance. China on the other hand has a non-convertible currency. They need our dollars desperately. And without it, the CCP can’t function.

Leahy: So let’s pretend you and I are little flies on the wall, and we’re in the conversation. Joe Biden has been named president. They have a little conference. It’s an hour after he’s been nominated. They’re back in the Oval Office. He’s got Chuck Schumer in there. He’s got Nancy Pelosi. They’re going through the list of executive orders they are going to they’re going to change.

And he comes up to them and he says, okay give me your recommendation. I’m thinking of canceling this executive order that would cause all this delisting of these bad actor Chinese companies. What is your advice? What does Chuck Schumer say to him? What does Nancy Pelosi say to him at that time? Well, I can’t speak to Nancy Pelosi because it’s she’s a hard one figure on this. (Leahy chuckles)

And she’s she has been both a supporter of Tibetan freedoms on the positive side, but she gives China a pass elsewhere as we’ve found out. Chuck Schumer, I can tell you this. He should understand and say candidly to the president if you think you’re known as Beijing Biden now and if you cancel or rescind this presidential executive order 13959 on military companies being excluded from American investment you are going to be painted as being in the pocket of Wall Street and Chinese leadership.

And that’s all there is to it. I mean nobody’s going to basically see a more nuanced view of this than that. So that is going to be what Schumer should say. The question is will he do so. And that’s going to depend on how much concern he has over his own donor base on Wall Street and so forth. I mean American values are on the line here and not to mention our security and our financial well-being because of these tremendous risks of non-transparent Chinese companies that don’t disclose their financials that aren’t audited.

That have no scrutiny of who they are or what they do with our money. Whether they’re going as I say to the Peoples Liberation Army or who these folks are. So we would never permit American companies to be in our markets with such an opaque non-disclosure attitude. So there we are. And I can tell you that they better think carefully because as I say, this is going to be an enduring legacy for anyone who tries to reverse course on this. It is bipartisan. It is an American issue. It is not just a republican Democrat thing as you know. And it’s a time for us all to come together. And as far as your listeners, they need to go to their brokers and fund managers and insist on knowing if I am holding Chinese companies in my investment portfolios.

Leahy: Roger Robinson is our China expert and a very good friend. Perhaps the leading expert on this topic and clearly articulate and knows his stuff.

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