 All right, happy Super Bowl Sunday to everybody and I'm looking forward to watching the game. I don't know about you guys Very American thing to do particularly for us immigrants I for those of you listening live you can also watch in our Facebook live We are streaming and it should work today because it's at home So I've got a good internet connection so everything should be working fine also to remind you I mean to some extent you guys can dictate the topics we talk about on this show by calling in and asking questions It's it's kind of open a mic. You can ask questions about anything. Those of you want me to talk more about philosophy Call up and ask a philosophical question. Those of you want me to talk about something that I don't usually talk about Call and ask if I don't have an opinion, which is pretty unusual You know, I'll tell you that I don't have an opinion all right three four seven three two four three zero seven five Three four seven three two four three zero seven five today We are talking about American nationalism or economic nationalism Versus America So the idea here is I Would argue that American nationalism economic nationalism nationalism as a concept is anti-American But what I want to do first is I want to talk about the positive first I you know people have people have argued and I think somewhat legitimately that all I do You know, I I criticize Trump But I don't present my own positive views about it or that I spend the beginning of the show criticizing Trump and then kind of my solutions or my answers to these problems of these issues of these Is is at the end of the show and People paying less attention to that and it comes across as overly negative. So let's start with a positive a Positive question to all of you What is America? What does it mean to talk about America now in a sense America's you know, you know, it's America's a particular Country with particular borders a particular geographic area It provides citizenship Based on certain standards. So it's the citizens of America's America is this geographic place And that's that's all true. But is that what really makes America America? What is it that defines America and makes it exceptional because I am I I am a true believer in American exceptionalism that there's something different about America that America is a different kind of place Given the borders given everything else a different kind of place than any other place on the planet Any other country and as you know as many of you know, I'm an immigrant So, you know, I chose to come to America for a particular reason now because it's beautiful It's a gorgeous country, but there are the gorgeous countries. China is amazingly beautiful South Africa is amazingly beautiful You know Canada if you go if you don't go when it's so cold You can't really breathe is a beautiful country But what is what is makes America unique or what has made America unique through its history because I'm going to argue That's a logic then we're losing and have been losing what America is and what makes American America special. So what is it? What is it? And a lot of people say, oh, it's a constitution It's the founding principles, but but in some sense and that's all true But what are those principles? What are the principles that animate? The Constitution of the United States. What is the principle that animates the Declaration of Independence? What is the what what is the what are the founding principles and to what extent are those principles still survive today to what extent is America still that America Because to me It is America is the founding idea of America America is a particular moral idea moral idea ethical idea It's not an economic idea. It's not even a political idea. It is fundamentally an ethical idea it's about morality and Indeed, I knew and said America was the first country in human history founded on a moral ethical principle So a moral ethical principle and what is that moral ethical principle? What is the principle that makes America different than any other country in the world? What is why did I in man call it the first? There was basically found it because they remember even at its founding There were real there was a real sin at the heart of it, right and and that sin at the heart of it Was certainly slavery and a lot of other things that the founders did do all wrong, but at its core its essence And what made I think America great Was a moral ethical principle, right? And I want to contrast that I want to contrast that today spend at least some of the show today contrasting that with the concept of America as presented by Left and right in American politics today as presented by you know what what Obama and Trump the contrast between the two right and and why I think both a fundamentally anti-American a fundamentally different fundamentally antagonistic to the very essence the very idea of what America is and what America stood for and And and what the founding principles really are about and In particularly with regard to Trump, I want to talk about this idea of economic nationalism Which is really I think animating and is going to animate in spite of people not believing that Trump will actually do what he says I think he actually will do what he said it really is animating animated his campaign and is really animating in the first few weeks of his administration We'll see where it goes from here, but certainly all signs suggest That this is at the top of his agenda. So what is the moral principle? What is the moral principle? That I'm there was unique to America and still is unique to America because there's still no other country That has elevated this principle to its place in which America has And suddenly no other country was founded on this idea another country you afford a revolution to establish this idea So it's fundamentally the idea of Individualism it's fundamentally the idea of the primacy of the individual So before America When if you ask the question, who's like who does your life belong to who these life? Who does your life belong to I'm still a little jet lag right who does your life belong to it was always always To the tribe to the group to the collective to the king to the to the witch doctor to the Pope or to God But your life Suddenly never maybe with the with the possible exception of Greece ancient Greece your life never Belonged in any kind of fundamental sense To yourself to you Right, so the fundamental question is you know your life What moral status does your life have and Again throughout most of human history with exception of Greece the most status your life had was as a sacrificial animal Sacrifice to the tribe and tribal societies Sacrifice to God in a Christian society Sacrifice to the king to the fewer to the Poletarian in a variety of different Collectivistic societies, but almost all of human history Places the group the collective And define the group differently every time right and and of course when we say sacrifice to a king the king Representing the nation representing the state so it's again It's really your sacrificing to the state with the king being the representative of that state representative of that group I said the fundamental always has been the individual is just a sacrificial animal to some other greater good and Think about that. It's always been your life is at the mercy of a greater good. It's the greater good That's important And the greater good again fill in the blank what that greater good is going to be and and Think about how politicians today even in America talk about this and put aside Trump but but almost every politician whether it was George Bush or McCain or Clinton or Trump or Obama all of them all of them always call us Called you as an individual whether it was JFK To fight to live for to dedicate your life to Some kind of greater good Some kind of greater good so you as an individual don't ultimately count or you don't count as much as some other Good, you know, whether it's helping the poor or whether it's going to the moon or whether it's the great state of America or whether it's this, you know, or whether it's a some religious cause Whatever it is, you know The greater good is what comes and remember McCain coming out of the National Convention the Republican National Convention in 2008 with the slogan country first Right the greater good in that case was country and That resonated with a lot of Americans and I think Trump has capitalized on something that in a sense McCain supposedly the enemy of Trump Laid the foundation of it indeed conservatism and and much of the American rights much of American Republicanism and and the conservatism over the last You know 50 years really since the the the defeats of a very Goldwater has laid the foundations for Trump There's reoriented us away From individualism towards nationalism away from for towards the idea if you will towards the idea The the individual at the end of the day doesn't count and neoconservatism is the same day the same thing the purpose The purpose according to neoconservatism of American the individual is the sacrifice for the American state and if you're interested in in neoconservatism in particular I would I would encourage you to read Brad Thompson's book Which I am a minor co-author helped with some of the chapters on on neoconservatism and obituary for an idea Which is a which is an excellent presentation of The evil of neoconservatism and how it's not just neoconservatism. It's a broader on bread of Straussianism Which has impacted the right and really made the right collectivistic and and Brad actually identifies Neoconservatism and Straussians is basically paving the road to fascism And I would argue paving the road to Donald Trump who ultimately is paving the road to fascism so Trump is not a Isolated kind of out of no way hard to understand phenomena This is where the American right has been heading for a very long time and again I think that if you read Brad if you read the book Neoconservatism and obituary for an idea available on Amazon You will see that that Brad and I to some extent forecast this we show the path towards it the whole idea there is The American collective that that the kind of the the mystical American spirit that we're all supposed to sacrifice towards and when you read David Brooks David Brooks has it has this and actually David Brooks had a Fascinating op-ed in and maybe when I take the take a break. I'll bring that up on I'll find it in the New York Times about Trump But it but it's interesting, you know, what David Brooks is upset about is that Donald Trump's collectivistic vision for America is different than David than David Brooks's collectivistic vision for America that David Brooks's collectivistic vision for America is about globalism is about spreading democracy it's about sacrificing American individuals for the sake of the freedom of you Rockies and people all over the world and The Donald Trump's form of collectivism is more You know for lack of a better word ice. Well, it's more Nationalistic in a sense of Isolation is in some way so They David Brooks wants us to sacrifice for the world Donald Trump just wants us to sacrifice for Americans But both are collectivistic competing collectivistic collectivistic visions and You know, suddenly in modern times suddenly sin the modern conservative movement With the possible exception of Berry Goldwater has been a collectivist movement and Donald Trump is just capitalized on that collectivism they have they have softened softened the people they have softened You know the the Republican Party to the point where They they're willing to embrace kind of Donald Trump as a symbol and in a sense what what what you see in the election of Donald Trump is people rejecting the Neoconservative version of collectivism for the sake of a Donald Trump economic nationalism form of collectivism That's you know, that is the That is really the choice that Americans have been presented with and what is lacking What has been lacking? since Goldwater I need to go what it didn't have this completely is a American candidate is an American vision for America is a founding fathers ideology Around which Americans could Get excited and that is an individualistic ideology. So what is America? America's individualism. What is America? America is the idea the moral idea that your life is yours and That the state is there only To protect you to protect you from coercion from others. It's the arbitrary dispute and protect you and that's it and As a consequence, it's your moral responsibility to take care of your life It's your moral duty to to strive towards achievement of happiness duties the wrong word but but your moral responsibility, that's what morality is about and That you have an inalienable right Which means you are free to pursue whatever values you deem Necessary for your own survival and happiness and flourishing and That it's your responsibility to achieve those values it's your responsibility to strike towards those values and It's your responsibility when you fail to achieve those values It's your responsibility to pick yourself up And try again It's not your neighbors and it's certainly not governments moral responsibility to prop you up So the whole idea of America is about individual moral responsibility for your own happiness not individual responsibility to get a superficial conservative sense Which ultimately what they want you to do is sacrifice for some greater cause than yourself. No, you are the cause You are what you should be fighting for you are what you should be living for your own happiness your own well-being your own flourishing as a human being is What America was created to facilitate and It's to facilitate the ability of virtuous people to succeed So America is there To make it possible for you to exercise your reason to exercise your rational faculty to achieve To be productive to go out there and be an entrepreneur to build to create or be be productive in any way you can It is a it is a country that was created in order to facilitate productiveness as a virtue Because it is a country that was created in order to facilitate reason Rational thinking as a virtue so What America is about is about creating the proper environment The proper legal environment where your rights are protected in such a way that the rational person in America could go out there and achieve and Succeed that there are no barriers are the official cursive barriers To individual human achievement if you are rational if you are productive There are no guarantees So if you're irrational and if you're not willing to be productive then you will fail in America Good America says we are the land of virtue not a vice We're the land of rationality of independence of productiveness Not of irrationality laziness entitlement and We are not a nation first but with a nation exists only for the purpose of Defending and protecting the individual and and this is partially a consequence of You know, I mean, you know, it was easier to do in America in a sense and it was doing Europe It was easier to start from nothing to start fresh to Unshackle yourself from all the collectivistic ideologies and and and and chains the that were placed on one in Europe and It to some extent to survive in America back then You had to have this spirit because it was a frontier nature provided that challenge and that Corrective measure if you were lazy on the frontier, you just couldn't survive So that frontier mentality That ability to start fresh to start new that ability to shrug off Everything European to shrug off aristocracy to shrug off entitlement to shrug off Collectivism is what made America unique what made America great What made America a moral country because it was a first country set up to defend Individual virtue to defend the virtuous to defend Reason to the to leave people alone so they could live a virtuous life basically, right? And that No other country did that. No other country who established for that purpose the French Revolution was not fought Said productive rational people could achieve happiness and flourishing in their lives It was fought much much more out of hatred now Maybe a legitimate hatred of the aristocrat who are exploiting people, but much more out of hatred Much more out of class envy much more out of the idea and and ultimately the idea of egalitarianism of Equality not just equality before the law not that equality of rights equality of liberty equality of freedom, but equality of outcome It was much more about smashing Than about building The American Revolution is the real revolution. It's the real new thing and To the extent that countries all over the world to whatever extent they have adopted elements out of the American Revolution out of the spirit of individualism out of the spirit of you own your life You are responsible for your life and your more purpose in life is your own individual happiness to the extent countries adopted that And I believe that much of the West adopted these ideas during the 19th century politically and even the East in the 20th century Adopted these ideas to some extent to some minimal limited extent, but to the extent that they did that That is the extent to which these countries have flourished as prospered have grown now One of the things that this whole view and I promise I will get your phone calls and somebody From I guess Austin 512 Has been on the line since I started the show. So he's eager to ask a question I will I promise to get to that And by the way, if you're calling in press one so that I know that you want to ask a question Versus just calling in to listen to the show. Some people just call in to listen to the show But if you want to ask a question, you have to press the one button So one of the things that individualism is that you have to understand that Individualism as a folk as as this idea that individual is the primary means that every economic political issue that comes up Cultural issue needs to be Examined and viewed and thought about from the perspective of the individual So for example, when people talk about trade When people talk about three And we've talked about this before in the show, but it's it's worth repeating because and particularly in the context of economic nationalism They talk about America is running a trade deficit with China with the input aside China because China always complicates things Okay, because Donald Trump has not made a big deal about the fact that we have a trade deficit with with In automobiles with with Germany. So we have a trade deficit with Germany and America trades with Germany and and as an individualist and and the way Americans have always thought about this and should think about this is no I Don't I don't know what a trade deficit even means Because I buy I've got I own a German car because I want to buy on a German car It's in my self-interest. It's in my pursuit of my individual flourishing to buy a German car Whose business is that? Right and so I bought a car from Germany I have a massive trade deficit with Germany because I don't think I do anything, you know Once in a while I go talk in Germany, but that's it It you know nothing close to how much money I spent on German products my my Audi cost a lot of money So all my talks in Germany don't add up to the value of the Audi So I you're on broke have a huge trade deficit with Germany Great, I don't care. Who cares what difference does it make to me? What difference does it make to you makes no difference to you and what business is it of yours? what businesses of my neighbor and You know because I bought a car in Germany It could be that in a car because a lot of us do that it could be that some American auto company goes out of business So what So what is the individualistic answer? I am not responsible and neither is my government For the existence of any particular company for the existence of any particular job and That auto worker who loses his job. He doesn't have a right to that job. He has a right to a job He certainly doesn't have a right to that specific job and if He loses that job then you know do what everybody else does and what we've always done in American history when we lose a job What do we do? We pack up our stuff and go look for another job and that's sometimes often has meant that we had to move to a different place and a different different County or a different state or a different part of the United States and To the extent there's an individualist We are concerned because it looks like the economic policy of the United States government is Restricting my standard of living is restricting the number of jobs that exist out there to that extent we should complain To the United States government about its policies there were strict jobs But what does that mean it cannot mean that it gets to tell me that I can't buy a car from Germany What it means is that there are too many controls too many constraints the government is spending too much of its effort and time and energy Unrestricting the ability of people to Pursue their flourishing to engage in reason and engage in productiveness and how do they do that they do that through massive regulation and massive Tax burden they take our money away from us So we can't use that money to actually pursue our own businesses or actually pursue our own Flourishing actually buy the things that are make our lives better instead. They take it to use for the national good or They regulate us they tell us what now I posted this article on on Facebook this is the article right the article was wow what a great victory we have in I can't sure if a South Dakota or not Dakota This is the Institute of Justice an organization I love and it does amazing amazing work on behalf of individualism and the Institute for Justice have won this major battle The state of South Dakota no longer Requires a license to braid hair. That's a pathetic The United States of America has become where the government is Is is regulating braiding hair and when we the advocates of individualism view Getting rid of those licensing requirements as a major victory now I'm not diminishing the work the IJ does on the country huge admirer And if they can get rid of licensing and braiding hair that's gonna you know, hopefully Lead to to getting rid of a lot of licensing laws, but but the very idea, right? American government not not not the European governments not in China not in Germany not France not in Israel, but in America You need a license to braid hair so to the extent that we are frustrated economically because We look around and they're not as many jobs as we think are possible and our standard living is not increasing and There's distortions in the allocation of wealth And we look and we see that government is doing all these things they are to blame and it's not just government as an abstraction to blame It's all of us are to blame. This is this is the opposite of Donald Trump's campaign, right? We are to blame because we vote these bastards in We are to blame because we accept it Oh, no, you we want to shrink government, but like the tea party said keep your hands off of my Medicare Well, what do you think Medicare is? The largest redistribution of wealth in human history, that's what Medicare is from young people to old people So so we are to blame. It's not the fault of foreigners It's not the fault of Mexicans. It's not the fault of immigrants We Americans have been voting these bastards in who are regulating controlling taxing our lives and We actually support those policies and then when things get rough and we don't like the jobs that we have We blame people overseas now. That's that's the economic nationalism that Donald Trump is capitalizing on and that is Exactly the opposite of what America stood for America was always about taking personal responsibility We screwed up we as individual Americans have screwed up We have voted for people who gave us Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid and Regulate hair braiding and regulate every aspect of American business and give us Dodd-Frank and you've given us Saubanes Oxley and and you know Glass-Steagall and and this has been going on for over a hundred years and We've got a Federal Reserve that is redistributing wealth By artificially manipulating interest rates and manipulating the supply of money and you could go on and on and on We Americans need to take responsibility for that as individuals and undo the mess But you see it's much easier It's so much easier and it feels so much better to blame those other guys To blame somebody else. It's those frigging immigrants. It's all their fault It's the Chinese. Oh, no, no, not just the Chinese the Japanese the Koreans the Mexicans the the Germans just fill in the blank and That's that's economic nationalism the essence of economic nationalism the essence of economic nationalism. I Mean is is to place the nation above the individual But the way in which you convince people to adopt economic nationalism is to tell them that other people Other people at fault with all their problems and if only we could took care of those other people everything would be great Everything would be great All right, I'm gonna take a Break in the sense that I'm gonna take a couple of phone calls And then I want to talk about economic nationalism what it signifies and then how it is manifest in a Trump administration And then I want to talk about a couple of things that Donald Trump has done in the last few weeks If people are complaining at me that I never see the positives that I don't talk about Trump's positives I'm gonna talk about the positive now You'll see that I don't view them as positives all the wonderful things Trump's has done over the last two weeks that I see negatives Even when the pot even when other people see positives. Sorry guys. It's just the way I am I'm objective I'm objective and and I want to ask you some questions about if if Obama had done the same thing as some of what Donald Trump is doing whether you would have cheered him as much Whether used of cheered as much. All right, but let's start with the phone call Hi, you're in the Iran book show. Who's this? 512 area code There you are. I can hear you just speak up a little bit. You're a little soft Okay Hi Tom, okay, so I've got I'm getting to your question. Can we hold off or do you want me to jump into it now? What's that? Yeah, we can hold off Okay, so so I've got it in writing you can you know if I don't answer it you can Well, you know what? Let's just do it because you're on the line. Let's just do it. So Tom Tom wrote me a very thoughtful question coming out of last week's show and and I thought it was a really good question and And it's a it's a kind of question that I get a lot of And so I wanted to answer him and I emailed him and said I'm gonna I'm gonna I want to take on this question and Tom Agreed to have his name mentioned as I so I'm gonna read what Tom wrote me and I'm gonna inexpose it with With my answers and then Tom you can follow up with anything Anything more that you want to ask that make sense? Yes, okay great. Okay, so Tom says I agree with you that Iran should have been nuked out of existence in 79 80 I actually never said that but but we get the spirit whether you use nukes or not They should have been crushed in 79 80. I told a Khomeini should have been gone The fact that they took our hostages Was an act of war and we should have engaged with them and crushed them in the whole Middle East today The whole Middle East today would be a completely different thing By the way, I believe strongly that if that have happened in 79 80, they've been all kaita. They've been Oasis the whole idea of Islamic totalitarianism would have been Discredited Iran's survival and in a sense thriving since 1979 what is it now? almost 40 years as is really emboldened the Islamist the Islamist cause okay and the Trump is an idiot so Tom at least agrees with you and Trump's an idiot But your solution to Congress should declare war on Islamic terrorists and countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia is correct Yet totally implausible How likely is it that this Congress or any Congress in our lifetime is going to do that? In order to get any kind of consensus for that you'd have to have a philosophical revolution in this country that Discards any kind of altruism and proudly asserts America's right to be a secular nation that is wealthy and enjoys the fruit of material success I don't see that happening anytime soon. All right, so let me take it up to this point I agree with everything Tom has written here He's absolutely right the likelihood that Congress is going to declare war in the way I suggest is as close to zero as one could imagine and everything he says here what we need is to return to America What I've been talking about what Americanism is we need to return to that or reestablish that and That's that science fiction whether it happens in our lifetime would be wonderful But let me just let me just pause here and say this in a sense of my goal Right. What is my goal in the Iran on the Iran Brook show? My goal is not to offer you Solutions in what we should do in the next two years. That's not my goal So and now I will I will provide that and in this context I'm gonna give you some some things that I think can be done in the next four years that are politically doable But my job as a commentator my job as a cultural Analyst and somebody who who talks hopefully philosophically about the world is not to provide practical solutions that are implementable in this Philosophical culture in the next two to four years, you know, I think that's futile because they've got a wrong philosophy So everything they're gonna do is gonna be wrong what I want to do and what I strive to do and When I think we don't have at all in the world in which we live in is somebody who tells you what it should look like What should happen? What the ideal looks like because the only way we'll ever get to the ideal is if we name it talk about it Advocate for it push for it constantly hop on the ideal So that when politicians get into power They know there's a voice out there for an ideal that they kind of because a lot of people I speak to a lot of Audiences about this font policy and I get standing ovation every time I say crush them. Let's declare war people want to believe this right So but they need to hear it my job is to voice that and I believe that if we voice that the country will slowly move in that direction now You can't just voice that alone. You have to Give it the philosophical foundation in egoism and in reason that it requires and and hopefully I continue to do that I don't just talk about politics. We're talking today about What America is which is basically a moral philosophical foundation But if nobody voices that crush them declare war Then we'll never get that so so my job is is to say that not to say given the altruism of American culture today I You know Here are the steps that we can take given the altruism Their culture today. Let me let me be very clear in my views Everything we do is going to backfire and and this relates to the second part of Tom's questions Let me go on to the and then at the end. I'm gonna let you chime in Tom Meanwhile, what do we do right now to counter the threat of Islamic terrorism? Trump's temporary ban on Muslims is a step in the right direction though He should have provided exemptions for Muslims who aided us in war and included the Saudis and Emirates in the ban Along with Pakistan, etc. This call for extreme vetting is a laudable goal If he can get someone in the state of honor to define what it is in the next four months and His refusal to allow refugees from Syria is a good thing. There's no way to properly vet them So some of what he wants to do is good Yes, and I said that on the show. I'm for extreme vetting my concern is My concern is this part if he can get someone in the state Department to define what it is Because if you read the executive order The executive order actually wants to vet people on their understanding of the founding principles of America That scares the bejesus out of me This is where because this is altruism because this is politics in the world in which we live in today You're giving a powerful tool to the government. I'm admitting we have to do it to some extent or another But we're giving this vetting tool to the government I'm worried that that vetting tool will be turned around on me and on people like me And when I want to immigrate to the United States, which I really have luckily I'm gonna be said you're on you don't understand the original principles of the United States The original principles didn't mean individualism. I met extra now That's not coming today, and it's not gonna happen tomorrow But ten years from now this executive order might be used for exactly that. I do not want ideological screening I want it clearly defined Clearly applicable to Islam clearly applicable to violence not to ideas But to the the promotion of violence and if they can do that I'll be for the extreme vetting The way the ban was done cannot be separated for the essence of the ban This is exactly people trying to do kind of the right thing, but they're altruists So they can't get it right so they can't actually say who the good guys and the bad guys are because that would be too self-interested So they kind of flounder they exclude good people and they ban You know some good people are not gonna get in they have to make an umbrella and then they make it too sweeping And then of course they can't go after the Saudis because Saudis are so-called our friends And if they identified the Saudis as an enemy that would create all kinds of problems only a Individualist could actually name the Saudis as an enemy. I bet you anything this administration will never do that So it's a half-assed Proposal a half-assed ban that is not gonna lead in my view to anything productive and good and could Dangerously lead to somebody something very very bad. And let me give you an example of where I was wrong in Accepting a half-measure as moving in the right direction in it backfired amazingly on me So this is in 2002 after 9-11 You know the I know an institute was strongly advocating for war against Iran and Saudi Arabia We put out four-page ads in the New York Times in a Washington Post. I was a television advocating for this We wrote about it. I spoke all over the country around this, but nobody was listening, right? Nobody was listening including many objectives, but nobody listens And then the one and then it was clear that Obama that Bush was going to launch a war in Iraq and I came to the conclusion back then that it was better to do a war in Iraq than not to do anything That the worst thing America could do was be perceived as accepting 9-11 is just happening And maybe if we engage in a war in Iraq, it would lead ultimately to us going after the Iranians And of course I was I think today looking back I was completely wrong I think the warning rock was a disaster that led to much worse consequences than not doing anything I think if we'd stayed home things would have been much better 5,000 Americans ultimately died for nothing worse than nothing they died for ISIS for the creation of an ISIS George W. Bush turned out to be even more pathetically weak than I thought he was in the second Second when we what are you the surge? We actually paid money to Sunnis not to fight us money that landed up funding ISIS and creating ISIS so a Measure that I thought was better than nothing turned out to be Much much worse than nothing and so I'm now very cautious about recommending things when I know that the people who are going to implement it As nutty as they are today, so today I would not advise going to war with you while giving who's gonna execute the war today I worry about a ban because I know who's gonna execute that ban I worry about these things and I'm gonna talk out against them and again I am going to say this is what should be that I know you're not gonna do it But you know what this is what should be done I'm gonna tell it to audiences all over the world and all over the all over the country and Hopefully we move people slowly towards what is ideal. I know none of this is gonna happen It might probably in my lifetime, but I think that if there's any hope for objectivism someday Then we have to start moving them. Okay. Second part also is good Also, I think you're a bit blase about the terrorist attacks in Orlando and San Bernardino If they continue the American people are going to accept police state a lot sooner than you and I would want Well, neither of us would ever want to police state. So that's just bad grammar They we have to infiltrate the Wahhabi mosque and crack down any moms who preach violence. I Agree. I agree. So I would never want to come across as blase about terrorist attacks like Orlando and San Bernardino And if I did I apologize, right that was a mistake my point was That is awful and as evil as Orlando and San Bernardino terrorist attacks were The band wouldn't have stopped him one because she came the woman in San Bernardino. He has to Saudi Arabia The man was born in America and Orlando the man was born in America and his parents came from Afghanistan I think if I'm right and Afghanistan was isn't on the band. So none of this is relevant But more than that I believe we should look at Orlando and San Bernardino objectively They are awful horrific. I think we should infiltrate Wahhabi mosques I've called for that since 9 11 and not just Wahhabi mosque I think shared mosques as well because who knows what the Iranians and what his Bala doing in the shared mosques that in America I think we have to crack down on these moms I've said all along while I object to the NSA listening to all of our phone calls They should be profiling. They should be looking at radicals. They should be and if they have to listen to all Muslims That's fine. There are things that need to be done But to do that we have to define the enemy and to do that we have to be self assertive And again, I don't see anybody doing that now the trumpet demonstrations leave at least moved in a direction My one positive of the day about Trump. They've at least defined the enemy. They've at least said that radical Islam is the enemy but Now focus on them and partially I hope that the extreme vetting really serves that purpose what I worry about Is the fact that from everything I've read and and I've read his actual speeches Bannon is anti-immigration. He does not want people to come to America anybody to come to America and That he will use the notion of extreme vetting to dramatically restrict immigration Now I hope I'm wrong, but but that's that's my sense But so I agree with you about about infiltrating and again, I've been saying this since 9 11 And I agree. Okay, you're on and this is this is where I get a lot of this We can't let the perfect become the enemy of the good We're going to have to accept solutions a little less perfect But still move us in the right direction sometime in the near future 100% agree with you But this is the key Move us in the right direction. I have to be convinced and I am not that The things that Donald Trump does move us in the right direction. I'm not convinced of that at all I haven't seen anything. He's done that in my view really in a deep sense and over the long term move us in the right direction I fear that it's much more of They faking forward and taking two steps backwards So we think we're going a step forward, but we're actually taking two back now I'm willing to I'm willing to accept that I might be wrong on some of these things and And maybe I'm exaggerating how bad Trump is and maybe I'm biased and I just don't like him personally and so on But I don't think that's the case, but it could be but I agree. I am for solutions and move us forward. I Worry given the nature of the people here given given the nature of Republicans generally that We're actually moving backwards in our forwards with much of what Donald Trump is doing All right, the final paragraph is one solution is a reform movement within Islam itself You should check out Zudi Aziz's American Islamic form which I am familiar with He's calling for secular Muslims to oppose radical teaching of Islam I think you and he could have a profitable exchange of ideas Look, I again, this is the kind of issue that I mean that I I've done a lot of work with Daniel pipes Then a lot of events with Daniel pipes Daniel pipes is big on Trying reform Islam from within You know secular Muslims and I'm supportive of that. I don't think it's a big issue for me I don't spend a lot of time on that that's their problem in a sense If secular Muslims want to do it, but yeah I believe and a lot of objectives oppose me on this and I get a lot of hate mail on this And I'm sure a lot of you in the chat are going to disagree with this But the fact is I agree that Islam can be reformed and and that but it's gonna take massive amounts of effort and it's gonna have to come from within Islam and You know, it can be reformed not in a sense that it becomes good, but it becomes less violent It it it has its own Enlightenment just like the Christianity and Judaism in a sense Were put in their place by the Enlightenment the same thing has to happen to Islam It needs to be secularized and I'm a huge proponent of that and huge support of that and I hope it happens. So All right, so that's my answer Tom that was a lot So if you have any follow-ups go ahead But who should we give it to well, I'm not opposed Yes, but I want that if I'm gonna give them a vetting tool and I agree with you the government has to do it Nobody else can do it. I want it to be very very clearly and narrowly stated Which again the executive order that I was criticizing is not it's too broad. So I want to narrowly I want to narrow vetting for Radical Islamists for violent tendencies and violent ideologies and that's it I don't want them to start getting into things like founding principles and understanding of the American way of life They should center around violation of rights, which means Violation of rights in the sense of that individuals gonna violate rights What I worry about is they start focusing on who are they gonna vote for and I know a lot of Objectives would like this that that we limit immigrants the only people who vote or vote Republican and we exclude immigrants who vote Democratic Because because the idea is if you vote Democratic, you're violating people's rights Yeah, okay, I I agree with about 95% of what you're saying. Okay, good I think the vetting tool should be precisely defined But it should be done by the State Department. Yeah, I agree with that The other thing is just the context in which Trump's Executive orders came out Now we've had eight years in which Islamic terrorism isn't even mentioned by the government Okay. Yep. So it's about time that the government took notice of it Yes, I'll agree that the one thing the one thing Trump has done that is good is he's a he's calling it what it is He's calling it Islamic terrorism And and that's that's that is that is that is a huge plus and it's the one thing I will praise him for And by the way, by the way, it's not eight years. It's 16 years Oh, well 15 years because George W. Biss never called them Islamic terrorists except for one week There was one week I can't remember the year where he floated the idea that the Islam or fascists and he got there was such a Backlash against that including from Republicans that he stopped it. But even I mean everybody likes to load up on Obama and I I said this on the show. I hate and I'm not saying he was worse I hate personally. I hate George W. Bush more than I do Obama and Bush started this of appeasement of Islam while going to war with him, which was a bizarre combination and And Obama just followed Bush's lead but Obama didn't do anything the Bush did not start Including his economic policies Yeah, I agree, but but Bush Bush is the one who got it going Bush was the appeaser Bush was the moderate with the moderate Bush is the one who who had people from care Coming to the White House to celebrate Ramadan, you know, just a few weeks after 9 11 Bush was the ultimate appeaser and because he did it from the right. It was so much more Powerful and and but even in economics Bush had a 300 billion dollar What do you call it? Stimulus package Obama had a 900 billion dollar Bush bailed out these institutions Obama bailed out those institutions Obama just took everything Bush did and put them a little bit on steroids But Bush is the real source of these bad ideas Now Obama Put the whole thing on steroids. He was the worst president in American history. Yeah, we we disagree on that, Tom We disagree. Okay I think I think Wilson was much worse and the consequences of Wilsonian the Wilsonian presidency Are going to be a thousand times or a thousand times worse than anything Obama was was incompetent and at the end of the day did very little because because of the republican house and senate Wilson did a lot a lot and changed the whole dynamic of american politics forever FDR was a lot worse than than Then obama and in terms of damage to america president johnson was a lot worse than obama You know, think about medicare medicaid war on poverty welfare The vietnam war the tens of thousands of americans who died there The crime rates the assassinations of the 1960s. I mean the cultural decay in the 1960s I mean johnson was horrific. So You know, there's a tradition of bad president We're saying the same cultural decay today We're not any nowhere near the same proportion as it was back then I I mean, I'm not I look around america today and I don't see as many riots as they are today They don't come anywhere close to the burning down of watts in the 1960s to the to the uh, to the uh To the wood stock and everything that it represented to the I mean, yes The what you saw in brookley was horrific and and horrible But it is it is one event relative to that was happening Almost weekly during 1968 that was happening everywhere in in that era So in many respects and rates of violence in the 60s in the late 60s and 70s Far higher than they are today in the united states. So in many respects And and you know The culture is still in the same direction of decay But I think I think things were worse in the 70s than they are today in many respects Yeah, they they were but i'm afraid that america is going in that direction And I agree with you and I think donald I think I fear that trump won't make it any better in a sense He'll make it worse But thanks tom I really really appreciated the question It was a good question and covered a lot of ground And a lot of issues that I think a lot of people had with some of my podcasts. So uh, I got to clarify a lot of issues So thank you for the opportunity Take care you too All right, we got one more call here and then I want to go back to economic uh nationalism How are you on the run book show? Who's this north caroline? I think three three six Ah, this is evan from north caroline. Hey evan. How's it going? And this is a question about economic nationalism. Good So I keep hearing all world dollar trump is elected dollar trump is elected Is this economic nationalism or these policies tear up the is this Is this even Like has this been part of the american left position ever? Yeah, I mean always always. I mean well The democratic party because I mean this isn't I know I know bernie fanners has been anti free trade 70 more far left This has been has it been like a mainstream democrat position Some democrats sure so it it it's not it wasn't a mainstream democrat position since clinton because clinton moved of democratic party on economic issues to the center and uh, and and particularly when it came to trade um, and Democrats in the center tended to listen to their economic advisors and if you look at Like leftist economists Even like paul krugman paul krugman won a noble prize for work He had done 30 years ago on on the benefits of international trade And almost all see almost all economists believe international trade is good There's almost no economists who don't so the centers of both parties who kind of tend to listen to some economics Not all but some economic economic sense were all for Um free trade because their economic advisors were all recommending free trade, but if you look out to the Uh more radical left to the progressive left or the regressive left The bony sanders people they've always been anti trade and indeed anti immigration bony sanders is anti immigration Uh, he in an interview, um, I forget with who but in an interview at the beginning of the campaign He was asked about open borders and he said You know god forbid open borders. That's a charles. That's a coke brothers proposal I'm not for open borders Open borders destroy unions and they lower wages and it's bad for the american worker to have open borders I I don't want immigration And I think the guy was interviewing who was a lefty was was was shocked by bony sanders saying that That's always been the demig the the the the progressive the leftist Uh portion of the democratic party's position and whenever there's been A free trade be like nafta or like, um Or was the you know other free trade deals like that the The extreme left and the extreme right always voted against it and the people who voted for it were the people kind of in the middle Right the moderate republicans are the moderate democrats go ahead Democrats are going to cooperate with him in this or do you think that they're just so wildly anti trump That they're gonna put the shoe in the other foot No, I think they'll actually cooperate with them on on trade issues. I think the democrats are idiots I think if they play their cards right I think uh, you know, both parties are pretty stupid But if they play their cards right, they will get some of their agenda passed by trump because I do think on on these issues He's a lefty. So I think on I think democrats have always been pro tariffs. They've always been pro um American workers, which is you know, this collectivistic idea of american workers And and and they could for example, I think that if if democrats sat down with trump I think they could get a pro union bill passed in congress I think I think that donald trump at the end of the day If if really pushed is going to be pro unions Because I I think I think he and bannon perceive unions as part of this Bannon's view of the judo-credition judo-christian view of capitalism and the importance of unions and And the american workers and protecting american workers and all that bs that they talk about So I think they can get and I think I don't think they'll support trump on immigration Because they have positioned themselves as getting the spanish vote By being pro-hispanic immigration But I think that if you look at unions unions have always Been anti immigration always been anti immigration And they actually killed when george w bush one of the few good things he wanted to do was kind of a comprehensive immigration reform in 2006 I think and the people who killed that were not the republicans It was the democrats the democrats wouldn't sign up And that comprehensive immigration reform would have legalized many of the illegal immigrants Would have opened up the borders in in more significant ways and it's democrats who killed it Because of the unions they were afraid to lose the union vote. So american politics is it's complicated in that sense because there is no Left and right in any fundamental sense. They're all collectivists and the essence of collectivism Is gang politics gang warfare politics? So it's my gang versus your gang so the democrats have all kinds of gangs they have to appease They've got the unions who are anti Immigration and then they've got the spanish so a pro immigration and then they've got the wealthy elites in Hollywood and other places who are pro other things and they've got all these gangs And they constantly have to balance the thing and the same with the republicans They've got the religious rights So they have to make a big deal out of religion and they've got the nativists the the anti immigration build the wall those kind of people and then they've got the The cronies the corporate leaders who are crowned, you know and and and each gang is fighting for its own So all of the politics today is basically gang warfare You know identity politics, it's all about different gangs and different groups And what what kind of who can we sacrifice for the sake of whom and who gets to win today and who gets to lose And that's what american politics is devolved into Um, and that's why I don't I don't care about left or right. I think that you know I think it's all garbage the real political spectrum is Individualism versus collectivism and all of these guys on left and right are fundamentally collectivists I know we got way away from your question. I think Well, that's no problem So go ahead if if you have anything else, so I'll I'll return to some of this stuff I mean How much of an impact is this gonna have in one of your shows you said 2017? Your prediction economy is good economy does well How much how much of an impact is this gonna have if it gets pushed through? well To the extent to the extent that trump is successful in passing all the things he want to pass That one could characterize as economic nationalism Dramatic restrictions on immigration Dramatic restrictions on trade Bringing the jobs back by I mean, I I've got a quote here. Let me find this quote from uh, navarro who is trump's Trade uh guy and he says the priority is to unwind and repatriate The international supply chains on which many u.s. Companies rely so the idea here is Bring those into you know, we have today when you look at an iphone. It's got thousands of parts made in hundreds of different Companies in dozens of different countries What navarro is basically saying we need to consolidate all those supply chains and bring them all back to the united states Now, let me say if you try to do that You are basically gonna spiral and I don't care. What else you do? You are going to bring about another great depression This is this is because today Trade is a cornerstone of the global economy It it is what compensates us for all the horrible regulations and the high taxes that we have the one Bright spot in the world today is the tariffs I historically at some of the lowest rates ever Maybe the lowest rates ever see in spite of all the cronyism Average tariffs in and out of the united states or the lowest that ever been and that compensates us for the fact That our businesses are so regulated and so tax so Our standard of living rises because of trade and declines because of all these uh All these uh tariffs and so on So what these idiots want to do is they want to destroy the one Positive good aspect of the use economy today Which is which is trade and think about silicon valley which whose supply chains are completely dependent on international trade Think what would happen to microsoft and cisco and apple and even google and companies like that If if if uh this economic nationalism really played out or or walmart or or or the steel companies in the united states that benefit from massive amounts of Cheap steel today. Oh, you know, it's just unthinkable the kind of economic disaster that these people Uh, you know, donald trump could could inflict on this country What's that? Thank you. Sure. Sure. Thanks for calling really appreciate it. Thanks for listening and sorry to be so pessimistic But but trade is that important And these people are putzing around with something It's like they've got their finger on a nuclear bomb and they're kind of oh, I might flip it. I might not. Hey, what's going on? right, you know and and it's it's um you know and and They're talking about they want to they will create a new political movement that focuses on jobs It focuses on and this is bannon. This is bannon speaking. This is a quote from bannon Like andrew jackson's populism. We're going to build an entirely new political movement It's everything related to jobs the conservatives are going to go crazy You know the free market conservatives. I'm the guy pushing a trillion dollar infrastructure plan bannon is pushing a trillion dollar infrastructure plan I mean, what's the difference between him and a democrat and the left? A trillion dollar infrastructure plan with negative interest rates throughout the world It's the greatest opportunity to rebuild everything at whose expense Shipyards ironworks get them all jacked up. I mean this guy is a Keynesian You know nationalist We're just going to throw it all up against the wall and see if it sticks It will be as exciting as the 1930s as exciting as the 1930s What were the 1930s f dr socialism? F dr nationalism and the rise of fascism all over the world Really we want to get exciting like the thirties I'm throwing stuff right. I don't know. I don't know what to make of this I don't know what to make of you guys supporting this crap Greater than reagan revolution. Well, of course reagan revolution was pretty minor conservatives plus populist in an economic nationalist movement that is bannon That is the number one advisor to president trump Right exciting as the 1930s 1930s that led immediately to world war two. I'm surprised. He doesn't say As exciting as the 1940s You know, well, we got to go to war. We got to go to war. What's more manly than going to war In the name of our nation. What's more exciting than that? Ugh, who'd I get a strangle today? All right, sorry. I'm losing it here all right, so and of course a you know Bannon is is is not just as populist these also very religious and it's all about It's all about the judeau criticism the decline in judeau Christian tradition and the rise of secularism and the evil is secular And I don't know who we go to war with I hopefully we don't go to war. Hopefully we can avoid it But at the end of the day That's what nationalism always leads to always the rise of economic nationalism always leads to let me talk quickly about economic nationalism And let me refer you to it an excellent article It was by richard ebbeling richard is a austrian economist who teaches at the citadel. He's a friend We disagree on some things. He's he's uh, but but This article is excellent. Uh, it appears in In the future the future freedom foundation the future freedom foundation And it's called the economic nationalism of donald trump by richard ebbeling eb e l i n g The economic nationalism of donald trump a richard ebbeling and it's excellent And he talks about what does economic nationalism mean when nationalism is the doctrine and he's quoting here from somebody who wrote in those exciting 1930s Because in those exciting 1930s a lot of people were concerned about nationalism because they could see it happening This is an an essay in 1937 By william rapod on economic nationalism and he writes nationalism Is the doctrine which places the nation at the top of the scale of political values That is above three viral values of the of the individual The regional unit and the international community. So think about this economic nationalism is donald trump, right? We place the individual above everything. So we represent one alternative which is individual regional units is like state rights The the the smaller unit the state is the highest not the nation but the state political value And the the the fourth is the international community. That's the globalist to one international government I mean the globalist in the negative sense not in terms of globalization, which i'm very much for but the people who want The u n to run everything and and the international community is what's important and we should be sacrificing ourselves for the poor in godforsaken places all around the world so He wrote this in 1937 and knows exactly the way you would divide people up today You could divide people up today economic nationalists the donald trump types The the regionalists the kind of conservative state rights who have no concept of what individual rights really mean and the internationalists who wants us all to sacrifice for the sake of people far far away And the real alternative to all of that of that are the individualists the people who believe the individual in the individual and and that that you know The individual as the basic mall and a political unit an economic unit So economic nationalism Is defined according to this article by its underlying purpose We should say that it was a doctrine destined to serve the nation by making it not richer but freer of Foreign influence So not freer in terms of freedom Freer in terms of less influence from foreign forces, right? So it's by promoting its material welfare Not that but it's independence from foreign influence. So the whole idea of economic nationalism. It's not to get richer It's not to make your your own citizens more prosperous It's to be independent from foreign influence foreign Impact and really to to establish national national self-sufficiency. This is the whole We want to be Energy independent nonsense, right? We want everything to be produced in america by american because we want to produce everything in america And in 1937 this author says what a ridiculous thing that is and what he says what it always does He says as no measure of restricting of imports of stimulating all products and of territorial expansion can possibly make any state Entirely self-sufficient under modern conditions Economic nationalism seeks fourthly To secure a positive balance of trade But he says that's ridiculous. So ultimately what economic nationalism does Is improvise your own country? Improvise your own country Hi so, um You know that is uh, that is uh That is economic nationalism. It's about restriction on imports stimulating home products and ultimately says because that makes you poor The economic nationalist then looks to try to conquer other countries to accept it But it it improvises Improvises yourself, right? Sorry. I if I use the wrong word it improvises the country. You're actually trying to help So, uh All right, um So this is completely anti-american this whole attitude is completely anti-american this whole perspective Of nationalism and is anti-american america is about looking at things from an individualist perspective right and so all this stuff about Trade I mean it's just ignorant But it's just an ignorant it is actually evil because it is actually again going to make us poorer In the name of nationalism in the name of bringing jobs back in the name of I don't know what In the name of national greatness it'll result in national depression so There's no economist who believes that NAFTA was bad for america He had lower tariffs now you could argue that it's not as good as it could be it could be much better because it could lower tariffs even more absolutely Absolutely NAFTA could be a lot better But it's pretty good And it's tpp was full of crony stuff And that's bad, but it also lower tariffs on a lot of stuff Remember we talked to tom before about steps in the right direction NAFTA is a huge step in the right direction tpp might have been a small step in the right direction, but it was in the right direction It was in the direction of lower tariffs at the expense of cronyism I hate cronyism, but you know what lower tariffs are probably more valuable. We'll fight cronyism in another day And then there's all manipulating a business and everything else that trump is doing The carrier deal that all the tax benefits this group because I like you and we're gonna increase taxes and that group I don't like you the the central planning the whole attitude is is unbelievable And then the wall the idea that immigrants are the enemy Is I mean I'll talk about immigration more In in weeks to come and I don't know if you know, but I'm doing this debate on Amy Peacock show You can list Amy Peacock show on a blog talk radio with Lindsay Poggio Piggio I don't know if I mispronounce that who is anti I think anti immigration will see and pro trump And and we're debating I think most the immigration on friday on Amy Peacock show. So if you want to hear that but Yeah, you can and of course all of it we will ultimately get a sacrifice individual rights for national safety which brings me back to the ban because I have to comment on this judge and and the response to this judge Now I'm not a legal scholar I do not know If this judge is within his power or not And the beauty of it is that we have a legal system And indeed the the justice of honor to appeal this and and the first to eliminate the the judge just ordered on friday That uh, the the ban on people coming in Muslims coming in be lifted lifted nationwide and You know, it's I don't know if that's within his within his right. I assume it is that's what our legal system is there to do It's there to stop the president and congress from doing things that the judiciary believes on constitutional And we have a complex system of appeals of of of congress could pass laws all kinds of things in order to to um Restrict power. This is a healthy good thing. So I think the fact that the judge did this I don't think it is a negative and it immigrants are not pouring into this country and uh You know 99.9 of the muslims coming into this country are not going to become terrorists There's little evidence of that. They were pouring in in quotes before the ban It went into fact. So a few more days is not going to make that big of a difference But the fact is the fact is that You know This judge did it it's within supposedly within his power the justice department went to one of their pellet courts this weekend To try to have an emergency lifting of the restriction on the ban and the pellet court said no so obviously their pellet court thinks the judge has the authority to do this And we are going to we are now going to see this go through their pellet process And I think very quickly to go through the process and the appeals courts will Will evaluate whether this is within the authority of the president or not And that's the way it should be that is how america functions. That is what That is what Americanism means it means the separation of powers It means we limit government It means we give the judiciary authority to say no president Fill in the blank. You can't do that That's the beauty of the american system And then This is the outrageous thing not what the judge did But what donald trump did in his tweet Saturday morning or saturday sometime where he called the judge who did this the so called Judge now i talked about this yesterday and you'll hear it So i'm not going to talk a lot about this but that is despicable. I'm sorry Every time I try to say okay, i'm going to try to be positive this week about donald trump. He's does something like this An american president can criticize judicial Things obama did that to the supreme court and by the way Republicans and people on the right and objectives flipped out when obama criticized the supreme court as we should have It's the high It's the highest court of the land. You got to respect their opinions. You can criticize them intellectually But you but you do it intellectually And and obama didn't now obama now donald trump calls this judge a so-called judge A so-called judge the president of the united states What would happen if he loses in the supreme court? What's gonna happen when judges rule against him which they should on some cases I mean, this is the exact authoritarianism Uncle gate and I have been warning you about and the fact that objectivists don't call this out the fact that objectivists are just Willing to accept anything donald trump does just proves my point This is despicable. She's called out. This is maybe one of the worst things he's done to date You cannot call a judge who's appointed as a judge. You can say I disagree with the judge The judge made a mistake and will prove it in the appellate court There is a process for this, but you do not call him a so-called judge But basically you're undercutting You're you're denying the legitimacy of the judiciary process and that is anti-american Which I have claimed all along donald trump is and an anti-american president not in the same sense That obama was obama was an anti-american in a sense that he didn't believe in america didn't love america Trump loves america, but he has no clue what america is No clue and his actual policies are destructive to america are destructive to america But I talk about that I talk about this so-called judge a lot more In my chicago show, which you can listen to in a couple of days online And unfortunately on the on the facebook live it got cut up and and the connection wasn't very good All right, so so I want to talk a little bit about Um About what uh, what trump has done So first let me be clear economic nationalism in america do not go together. They are opposites They clash america equals individualism this president doesn't have a clue what individualism is Bannon who seems to be the most powerful of his advisors Has declared himself to be an economic nationalist that quote upon quote upon quote of bannon saying this He admires nationalism. You heard the quote about the exciting 1930s. This is very very dangerous stuff Okay, but people say you're on he's done so many good things in the first two weeks Nobody could have expected a president of the united states to do so many good things So first of all you can call in with good things that donald trump has done because I can't remember that many 347-324-3075 we've got 10 minutes for this uh, I I forgot to prepare a um A uh a movie or a tv or part although I could pull out something from uh, otherwise to end on a positive note But but let me I just want to maybe this is a positive note or there won't be in the end trying to find positive things that obama that uh um Donald trump has done now don't give me that the major positive is that he's not hillary clinton We know that right she lost he won. He's who we have to deal with So he approved the pipelines Now I've never understood I have to admit I've never understood this I've never understood why republicans and a lot of other people made such a big deal of pipelines I mean, I think I think it was I think it's terrible that obama Got involved and and it rejected them But why is this such a big deal? A government regulations and government controls probably stop productive activity every single day Why are the pipelines special? Not only that I suspect that these pipelines are going to involve massive violations of Property rights because they're all going to involve eminent domain And trump has actually said when he approved the pipelines he said Yay, we're going to use eminent domain people criticize me about eminent domain But yay, we're going to go and use eminent domain I mean great. He approved the pipelines good for him I don't see it's a big deal. I don't think it has much of an economic impact I don't think it's that important by the way one of the provisions in his executive order And this is this is what this is the evil that even when he does good He creates evil is that the pipelines have to be built with american made steel That's damn unamerican and evil and bad and should be rejected by anybody who knows one bit of economics So You know pipelines, okay Okay, so he turned he turned back something bad that obama did this is important a lot of people Oh, wow, we're building the pipeline. Why who cares? Right pipelines should be private things people want a bit pipelines It should be a lot of built pipelines without using eminent domain They they should build the pipelines if that's what's efficient for them government should stay out of it Identifying two specific pipelines of the president to prove them or disapprove them I mean it's good that they're not being disapproved. Yeah, all right I talked about the appointments. I'm not gonna repeat the appointments a lot of the appointments are good I think probably the best thing about donald trump so far was some of his appointments I think there's a number of people who've been appointed, but you know people like, you know, two particular places Betsy Devosta education secretary Is probably good of though I even there i'm worried why am I worried because there's very little you can do at the national level With regard to education that's good. You can dismantle a lot of stuff, but anything positive is typically going to be bad Education right now is at the state level It should stay at the state level the battle for freedom and education should be at the state's not at the federal level Because the federal government doesn't do much So my fear is that what what what they're going to do is expand the role of the federal government In education in order to try to impose so-called free market solutions on an education I don't think they can do that. I I think it's gonna You know, we'll see. I hope I hope i'm wrong. I'm hope betsy devosta does something good Anyway, I think there are a number of appointments. They're good. Um I don't think the ban was good I've I've talked about this because of its scope and because of the way it emphasized ideology and because of It it identifies seven countries that are not the key countries and all the problems all the problems With this ban. It's just a silly ban Um, let me just say I think the pipeline's in the ban and a lot of what donald trump is doing He's doing to appease his base. He's doing it to say to the way see I did it Rather than these being good things and being very helpful things the other one that people excited about. Oh my god For every regulation new regulation that's passed two regulations are going to be cut I don't I can't get excited about that. Sorry partially because why are we passing any new regulations? and secondly because One versus two But this isn't a numeric your game. I know regulations They could basically cripple whole industries and you could eliminate two regulations that are irrelevant to anybody This is about quality not quantity. It's not a numbers game I want massive D regulation I want whole regulatory bills like dodd frank, which he started tinkering with but I don't want tinkering with it I want them eliminated. I want obama k gone. I want saubanes oxley gone I even want the old glastigo gone only a portion of it is being eliminated. I want the whole thing gone Right. I want big and I know some of you are going to say well, you're wrong. That's so ideal You know that can't happen. You have to live in the real world. Well No, I'm going to define what we need to do and you guys put pressure on them to do but two for one I mean, it's kind of in the red direction, but it's it's just the fact that it's about numbers suggests to me This is what the regulators will do. I know how regulators function They'll introduce a new regulation that's meaningful And they'll they'll scrap two regulations that haven't probably been applied to the industry in 45 years Because there's so many regulations in the book. They go back a hundred years So, you know, I I don't know how you guys take this stuff seriously. I really I don't know if it's naivete Or this authoritarian that you just want something to get done Okay, here's something good that donald trump has done that I embrace right the epa It looks like he's cutting staff It looks like they're not gonna take this whole global warming seriously. It looks like they're gonna restructure it all Cool I'm all for that to the extent that they do stuff like that good And You know, I just hope they follow through. I hope they do it right And I hope they expand it from the epa to a bunch of other agencies All right, we've got one caller maybe has something else good that donald trump's done that I have not familiar with Hi, you're new on book show. Who's this? Hi, you're Ron. It's been a while. This is Dave from Portland, Oregon. Hey, Dave. How's it going? Good good. Um, I hope you don't mind if I just plant the seed and jump off I'm driving in some funky weather out here Sure. No, I've only got three minutes to plant the seed quickly and and feel free to jump off Okay um, the question is and I think you actually just started to touch on it is, um Bringing back repealing at least some of uh, dodd frank that was I'm not a trump fan by any stretch But that was just something that uh, I wonder if you might comment on and some of the fear Mongering of the left in terms of actually taking back some of dodd frank Yeah, so the leftover the left, of course is is is going to try to climb up onto any regulation any controls that they can and so that it's bs, but also about what Um, trump is proposing so far. It's pretty minor. The fiduciary rule is just one minor aspect of dodd frank It's important and getting rid of it would be good And I'll talk more about it in a future show because I don't have the time to really get deep into dodd frank But dodd frank is a big big monster and it needs to be thoughtfully and carefully dismantled And at the same time we need to make clear what we're going to be do about too big to fail banks How are we going to get out of too big to fail? What are we going to replace too big to fail with? And that's going to require a very complex process of deregulation. There are some pretty good. There's some pretty good stuff Uh In congress to do that and I hope that donald trump ultimately supports that And the best person to do all this would be um, john allison from from bb&t And and formally, uh, the head of the kato institute. So I would suggest that donald trump make John allison Financial deregulation's zaw. You remember those zaws that that obama created Financial deregulation's zaw and that john be responsible for the systematic Deregulation of the financial industry over the next four years And I feed that that I would praise that That idea and that nomination particularly if they actually led john do what he wants to do To the you know, I would I would I would really praise that but you know, let's wait and see if that happens I guess there's still a possibility that will happen But uh, we're gonna have to wait and see um All right, we'll do a whole show on dodd frank Add that to the list of all the shows. I promised you guys that I haven't fulfilled. Thanks Dave. Thanks for calling um, and thank you all guys for listening. We're uh close to wrapping up here and um You know, as somebody mentioned alex No, no I don't know how to pronounce his name from kato. Uh, he does he does uh, he writes for them on immigration And I think his work on immigration is excellent. Uh, I quote him often And uh, he gets a lot of data and he produces a lot of data and and he's excellent. So on the issues of immigration I'm far close on those issues to kato than I am to anything trump and anything other people are doing Um, although I think they they they miss some of the islamic issues because they're the soft on the terrorism issues And they they take them too lightly and I'm I'm a lot tough on him on on islamic terrorism. All right Thank you all for listening. Uh, you have been listening to your own book show We will talk to you uh next week where I'm sure we will have uh Lots of new stuff to talk about