Bill on Secure Freedom Radio 11/17/21

One of the hardy perennials of our conversations of course is what the Chinese communist party is up to, Bill, that is both exploiting our financial resources, most especially in connection with the financial sector, transferring by some estimates, multiple trillions of dollars in American investors portfolios to the Chinese communist party, even the people’s liberation army, incredibly enough. But there’s another whole slew of American companies that also are anxious to do business with the Chinese, besides Larry Fink at BlackRock and his ilk. And they got a letter from the Chinese communist party embassy here in Washington last week. What do we know about that letter and what was the thrust of it? What do you think it’s implications will be?



Frank Gaffney (00:00):

One of the battle spaces that we understand and must attend to in that war, is the financial and economic battle space. And man who has worked in it, understands it well and is one of our featured guests each week is Bill Walton. And we’re delighted to have a chance to visit with him always, but particularly at a moment when there’s a lot happening in this domain and we need guidance. Bill is of course the host of a terrific TV podcast, the Bill Walton Show. A man who has long experience on wall street. And is these days, one of the leaders of the conservative movement in the United States as a past president of the council for national policy, which I’m proud to be a member. Bill Walton, welcome back, sir. It’s so good to have you with us.

One of the hardy perennials of our conversations of course is what the Chinese communist party is up to, Bill, that is both exploiting our financial resources, most especially in connection with the financial sector, transferring by some estimates, multiple trillions of dollars in American investors portfolios to the Chinese communist party, even the people’s liberation army, incredibly enough. But there’s another whole slew of American companies that also are anxious to do business with the Chinese, besides Larry Fink at BlackRock and his ilk. And they got a letter from the Chinese communist party embassy here in Washington last week. What do we know about that letter and what was the thrust of it? What do you think it’s implications will be?

Bill Walton (01:43):

Well, the Chinese have been working to assiduously to influence Congress for decades now. And this is the latest, but maybe the most explicit and overt messages that’s come from them. I mean, we don’t know exactly who it was sent to essentially a lot of people, a lot of organize. You can imagine most of the trade organizations. And specifically what they’re aimed at is that, in order to protect our supply chain, Congress quite rightly has begun to promote semiconductor production in the United States. Bill called the US innovation and competition act. There’s also another act that’s called the Eagle act. And they’re both with the aim of creating more domestic supply for critical technologies like semiconductors. Well, the Chinese, do not like this and they’re leveling a threat that they write this. We really hope that you will play a positive role in urging members of Congress to abandon the zero sum mindset in ideological prejudice and stop touting negative China related bills. I mean, Frank, it couldn’t be more direct. And then they end it with create favorable conditions for trade before it is too late. And what they’re saying, maybe not in this letter, but indirectly is that if these trade associations or members of trade associations want to do business with China, they’re not going to be looked upon favorable unless they co China’s line with regard to this legislation …

Frank Gaffney (03:21):

And Bill, what that means, as a practical matter is that these trade associations or their members. And I think it actually is going to be the case that will see this translating into individual companies weighing in with their elected officials, not just these umbrella groups is that they become part of the China lobby. And there are implications of that or something called the Foreign Agents’ Registration act. And I gather that some of these companies are quite sensibly leery of having to register as agents of the Chinese communist party. How do you think this is going to sort out Bill, will their greed and determination to make money in China, trump, if I can use that expression, their willingness to conform to US law or avoid becoming just handmaids of the CCP.

Bill Walton (04:17):

Well, as usual of the Chinese, this is very cleverly done and the way the letters are written, it’s written as if these entities receiving the letters were already on the payroll of China. Who are doing China’s bidding. And of course, most of them are not. But the way it’s set up is that they do run a foul of the FARA for Foreign Agents Registration Act. And it could be a lot of legal jeopardy and the question that remains open here is, okay, you get this letter, you don’t do anything, but if you do something in six months and in any way, throws a nod towards China, you’re then in violation of the act and you’ve become an unregistered foreign agent. They’ve set up a minefield here that once again, using our law to trip us up.

Frank Gaffney (05:04):

This is the thing where we find ourselves is increasingly not only dependent on China, but subject to their dicta. And it’s all the more reason why we need legislation that is freeing our supply chains from China and make us more competitive, needless to say. Let me ask you about the infrastructure Bill that has been signed into law recently by president Biden. You and I have discussed this in the past, the unbelievable amount of money that’s being thrown at what turns out, not to be a whole lot of infrastructure improvements, but one of the things that it does do Bill is make a priority for federal government funding of the so-called green new deal, which as I understand it will have as a principal effect, making us more dependent on Chinese supply chains. What’s going on here. Talk us through that, if you would.

Bill Walton (06:08):

We’ve talked about this before Frank, Donald Trump made us energy independent, largely relying on fossil fuels but he we also did some with solar and wind and we were independent. And now the notion is we’re going to go to, I think the number of cars are going to go from 3%, zero emission to 50%, zero emission in just seven years, 2030. Well, it violates the law of physics and economics to see how you can get there. And they want set up the Bill, also provides a lot of funding for charging stations they’re supposed to and increase the number of electronic vehicle charging stations by 20 fold in the next five to seven years. Again, a very tough thing to actually pull off. But the pernicious thing at the out this is that the so-called renewables and I’m repeating myself, are not renewable.

And to make solar and to make wind energy rely on incredible number of mining and manufacturing. That, oh, by the way, is done almost exclusively in China. So taking what we want is a renewable energy source, instead of by the way, China, we’re going to depend on you for the components. And I have to say it again. I said it before, the environmental impact of the mining and the manufacturing of the equipment that goes into so-called green new energy is anything but. And it has roughly 10 times the footprint of fossil fuels and the …

Frank Gaffney (07:47):

And by the way, Bill that’s especially true the way the Chinese exploit resources. They don’t give a fig about environmental predation, particularly in countries other than their own, but even in their own. And as a result, the fact that they are dominating the world’s supply of rare earth minerals means that there will be even more damage done to the environment as we get so called green, no?

Bill Walton (08:19):

The thing about this is it replies … For people who care about human rights, you’ve got to care about this because a lot of the rare earth minerals mine by China are mined using slave labor, forced labor, all sorts of child labor, all the things that the left is supposed to care about and want to not have happen. If that is how they are extracting, manufactured and produced. And here’s the name from the past, where the other source for a lot of this is the Belgium Congo and using some of the same employment practices that the Chinese use, IE slave labor and so we are empowering … [crosstalk 00:08:58]

Frank Gaffney (08:58):

You can imagine that will be true in Afghanistan, too. Don’t you think the lithium deposits there.

Bill Walton (09:04):

There’s a trillion of rarer of minerals that have gone unexploited so far, but you can best that, that’s a gleam in China, by right.

Frank Gaffney (09:10):

Hey, Bill, let me turn to another set of problems. I had on our program earlier this week, Sam Faddis, who is a man deeply knowledgeable about the penetration of governments and subverting them through compromising key officials. He did it for a living for us in the central intelligence agency for a couple of decades. And he’s very good concerned about what the Chinese have done in the Biden administration, starting with the president himself, whom he is called the manchurian president, a reference of course, to the work of fiction, The Manchurian Candidate in which somebody was actually a wholly owned agent of the enemy and was thereby used to subvert this country.

He particularly is concerned that a number of people in this administration starting with the president are deeply compromised by the Chinese communist party. As you put it, essentially, if you wanted to think about Xi dreamed team, Xi Jinping’s dream team. This would look a lot like it, there’s a woman by the name of Saule Omarova, who the Biden administration has nominated to be the comp controller of the currency. Can you just quickly sketch out what that position entails and who she is and whether this is an appropriate choice or potentially a very fraught one?

Bill Walton (10:43):

Well, Ms. Omarova is a flat out Marxist. And I think she was born in the Soviet Union, came here, studied, became an academic and has an incredibly radical vision of the banking system that she would regulate. She wants to put an end to banking as we know it. And essentially as the federal reserve be the only bank in the United States, and it would control all the credit. It would control interest rates. It would control bank accounts, bank deposits. And she’s an advocate of a technique that was used in one of the Soviet satellite states a few years ago, where they, in order to deal with the currency issues or inflation issues, they drained personal bank accounts, to take money out of the system.

Now think about that, federal government citing inflation, so called and you find out that your bank accounts been drained by half because that’s what the fed policy move is, has dictated. I mean, it’s stunning stuff, Frank, I hate to make light of her, but if you look at a picture of her, she’s a very stern looking woman with very strong steel rim glasses. And she actually looks like a villain out of a bond movie. She wants total control of the private credit system, private banking system, and would eliminate the bank. She regulates or probably when the time comes, privatize them just for ownership and federal government.

Frank Gaffney (12:17):

And specifically as I understand it, she’s interested in having the federal reserve become somehow the bank, instead of those that we have relied upon, big and small. For many generations in this country. How would that work Bill, and is it advisable?

Bill Walton (12:33):

Well, it doesn’t work. Look at the student loan program that used to be part of the private banking system with the government guarantee. And they moved it into the federal and administered by the department of education. And knows nothing about finance and it’s just a catastrophe. So imagine every other major financial system in the United States being handled same way we’ve handled student loans. It beggars now. I’m not inside the committee to know what the chances are for getting her voted out of committee for vote. I hope that Louw …

Frank Gaffney (13:17):

It seems a troubled nomination. I think that’s fair to say, but whether it’s as it should be, dead on arrival, is not entirely clear. But this brings me to another question, Bill, we’ve talked about it a little bit in the past, and that is the leadership of the federal reserve itself. What are you hearing in those sweep stakes? There’s some talk that Biden has in mind, sort of making over the fed. Maybe not exactly the way Ms. Omarova has in mind, but still in a way that the progressives do, what are the implications of that?

Bill Walton (13:52):

Well, the federal reserves shared by Jay Powell and there’s a woman who’s on the federal reserve board. Now, Lael Brainard and the left is now pushing Lael Brainard to replace Jay Powell in January, February is the new chairman. And if you look at Jay’s track record, he’s been okay. He’s been a terrible job in terms of keeping [inaudible 00:14:16] near zero and not letting the credit markets come back to life. He’s also been monetizing the debt by buying mortgage bonds and all sorts of other dubious assets and putting him into federal reserve balance sheet. But plus side of Jay is he has done some things and deregulation. He’s loosen some of the strict on banks for private proprietary trading, which of course private trading is how the price mechanism works and how you find the right allocation for credit.

And so we want banks doing that. Lael Brainard by contrast thinks that Jay’s been way too tough on or not tough, nearly tough on regulation. It ought to be increased. But the show stopper here is that the fed has a dual mandate. Some of [inaudible 00:15:05] think it should be just one, one of them is to keep inflation near zero. And the other one is to maintain full employment. Now, I don’t really think that the fed has much to do with full employment, but that’s a discussion for another day because what’s happened here is they want to add two more mandates. And the second, the third mandate would be the fed should combat climate change and federal reserve policy should be aimed at stopping climate change. Now, nobody that I have read or heard about or seen, or whatever is ever specified, how they could make that happen.

In fact, they can’t. But the fourth mandate they’re now looking for that. Lael, is the proponent of is gender equity in border rooms. We ought to see more women in boardrooms and following up in California’s lead, I think California just passed a law where, every corporation there has to have at least three women in the boardroom. Now, I have to say there are highly talented women. In fact, when I ran my business, most of my top people were women, but that doesn’t mean we necessarily had a mandate. We picked them because they were the best people. So they’re now adding climate change. It’s what’s happening with the fed and that’s why we need to pay attention to our institutions it just become very woke. And if you look at all the out of the federal reserve bank of San Francisco, you’d think you were looking at writings out of the California Berkeley in terms …

Frank Gaffney (16:41):

Probably you are as a matter of fact. But the point Bill Walton is that what you are seeing here is the march through the institutions. Bill Walton, we have to leave it at that for of the moment. Thank you for your leadership on all of these fronts and for joining me and see if we to talk about it. We look forward to doing so again, next week. Meantime, keep up the great work that you do for all of us at The Bill Walton Show and come back to us again next week.

Next up, we will be speaking with Anne McLean in a fascinating tour of what’s been happening in the way of fundamental transformation of our educational system and its implications, not just at the university of California, Berkeley, everywhere. That more straight ahead.