All Episodes
Previous Next
April 7, 2025 - Jim Fetzer
38:45
Col. Douglas Macgregor: Cartels’ “Death Grip” & Attacking Iran Could End America in 10 Years
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
After interviewing the world's top financial minds for over 10,000 hours, I've learned one thing.
Most people aren't ready for what's coming.
That's why I'm giving you my top 10 essential lessons for safeguarding your wealth for free at DannyReport.com.
This guide reveals the biggest threats to your financial freedom.
You'll also get ITM's free gold and silver protection guide, a must-have for anyone serious about preserving their wealth.
Get yours now at DannyReport.com.
We've embarrassed ourselves.
We are seen as destabilizing.
We will help bring stability to the world.
If we listen to President Trump, he wants peace.
He doesn't want America involved in wars.
The first president in modern times to start no new wars.
Now we're threatening Iran, a nation of almost 100 million.
With a nation-ending existential strike.
We don't want to have a potential war with China, but I can tell you if we did, we're very well equipped.
China is in the position we were in the 40s.
They are the 900-pound gorilla on the planet.
We dominated the world in the 80 years after World War II. That's over.
We have not fundamentally shaken the death grip in which the cartels hold our country.
If we don't do that, we will not last out another decade.
Will a global trade war be unleashed?
President Donald Trump signing an aggressive and far-reaching reciprocal tariff policy at the White House.
The president is saying his plan will set a 10% baseline tariff across the board, and the plan imposes steep tariffs on many countries.
Joining me today to get immediate reaction is Colonel Douglas McGregor.
He is the CEO of our country, our choice.
Colonel, it's an honor to have you on the Daniela Camboni show.
Welcome. Well, I'm happy to be here.
So much to digest.
I mean, look, pundits.
Are quick to predict that President Donald Trump's trade global tariff war basically is either going to be a spectacular success or it's going to be a total disaster.
Your thoughts on what you what you're hearing and what you heard and how you see things.
Well, that's interesting that some people think in terms of either or.
I'm probably not sure at this point.
I would say the following, and again, warning everyone who's listening, I am not a financial analyst.
But we know from history, you know, you've got this Smoot-Hawley experience, which was not good.
And ultimately, that brought on deflation and a depression, probably more than anything else.
I don't know what the impact will be, but at first glance, I think this is This is an approach which seems to be almost a machine gun approach by the president.
And I know he's inclined in that kind of direction.
He likes to go in sort of with a sledgehammer.
And in this case, I think it's a machine gun.
He's loaded up 100 rounds and he shot them all off simultaneously for shock.
And I think he's shocking things.
The problem is that the world that he knew just four or five years ago has changed radically in economic terms.
And normally when people ask me about the impact of these things, they ask me about China.
And I'm always quick to point out, I don't think the tariffs are going to make any difference to the Chinese at all.
Because you have to look at the direction in which trade moves.
And the supply chains and trade avenues that have been built over the last five years.
The Chinese discovered early on they could not become wholly dependent upon our market.
And so they began cultivating and developing markets all over Asia.
And if you look at this organization called RCEP, which China's actually leading, this came into existence even before regional economic cooperation.
This came into existence before BRICS.
And what they've done is they brought in Japan and Korea and Vietnam.
Everyone in Asia who wants access to the Chinese market has joined this organization.
This is one of the reasons our attempt to build something similar focused on the United States failed miserably.
And so the Chinese, they don't really depend upon us the way they did five years ago.
So I think the expectation that this is going to change Chinese behavior is fundamentally false.
The other thing is, you know, as well as I do, a tariff is a tax.
And when you tax, you always risk destruction.
Right now, it looks like our automobile industry is going to be in a lot of trouble.
Because we don't necessarily have an American automobile industry, a Japanese automobile industry, a German automobile industry.
What we have today is an automobile manufacturing system that is global.
And you are dependent upon repair parts and various assemblies that come from many, many places that are then put together at a particular location.
These tariffs are going to play hell with that.
And are undoubtedly going to hurt the automobile industry.
What will it do elsewhere?
I don't know.
The other thing is, I think it's a mistake to assume that if we punish others with these tariffs, that somehow or another our manufacturing base, which has suffered terribly and is almost compared to, say, with China non-existent, I don't see that's going to be springing back anytime soon.
So I'm someone who is hopeful that some good will come of it, but admittedly, I'm very pessimistic.
Now, you raise a very interesting point about China, how they won't hurt because they've looked elsewhere and prepared.
Now, a country that hasn't done so is Canada.
And so they find themselves in a very difficult predicament.
Now, the interesting thing, Colonel, is that, you know, President Trump came out pounding first on China.
Nothing new was added to Canada yesterday.
I guess that's the good news for Canada.
But overall, how do you see relations between these two nations that have been friendly forever?
Well, Canada, of course, shrinks to insignificance in grand terms next to China.
So I'm not surprised that Canada has taken the position they have to accommodate us.
To be frank, we dominate the Western Hemisphere in every sense of the word.
Everybody is compelled to ultimately accommodate us here.
That's not true anymore in the Eastern Hemisphere.
It's certainly not true in Eurasia.
So my point is, I think the Chinese and the Canadians will do what they can.
And again, what have we found in the past?
If people want to trade, they're going to trade.
The notion that you're going to isolate or insulate anyone from China or Russia or Iran, That just hasn't held up to closer scrutiny.
It hasn't worked very well.
There are always ways around sanctions, and I think there'll be ways around these tariff walls that we're building.
Yeah, that's a very, very valid point.
And on the point about pain that we might feel in the automobile sector, do you think that pain just might be short-term?
I don't know.
These things take time to have an impact.
And if you remove them at some point, it takes time for them to unwind.
You're forcing people down different avenues and different roads.
Right now, somebody was asking me about China versus the United States.
Where do they stand with each other?
And I said, you've got to think of the United States in 1941.
In 1941, we'd had obviously a very long and punishing depression, but we had an enormously skilled workforce, a good workforce, a workforce where everyone wanted to work.
We also had a huge manufacturing base.
Much of that had come into existence in the years after the Civil War.
And again, another shot in the arm during World War I when we produced so much for the Allies.
And of course, we did so with impunity because no one could harm us at that point.
Right now, I think China is in the position we were in the 40s.
They are the 900-pound gorilla on the planet.
Their manufacturing base is absolutely unbeatable.
And they have a huge, huge labor market.
They've got plenty of people, very skilled, very capable.
Now, where do we stand?
I don't think we can compete.
Our manufacturing base is quite small.
And we've got problems with our labor market.
For nothing else, for no other reason, partially because of illegal immigration.
And also because our educational system has declined, and we're not providing people with a path to employment.
They're not developing the skills they need to find jobs in the scientific industrial base.
So the best way I can say is if I look at the two, that's why, you know, frankly, China is going to dominate this world for a very long time for the reasons I just outlined, just as we dominated the world in the 80 years after World War II.
That's over.
And you're going to see something else happen.
Now, that doesn't mean we're all going to have to learn Chinese and be ruled by the Chinese.
That has nothing to do with it.
Americans have a bad habit of saying, well, if they're very, very rich, then we're at risk.
No. China, for most of the last 2,000 years, with the exception of about 400 years, 300 to 400 years, was the richest country in the world.
So you're not really seeing something new develop.
You're seeing a restoration of sorts.
In fact, that's something that needs to be kept in mind by people when they look at the world we live in today.
If I took you back a thousand years and I showed you the major civilizational states that were ruling the world at that time in terms of wealth and power, they were places like Persia, India, China.
You know, even at that point, the so-called Turkish Empire didn't exist, but you had the Byzantine Empire.
But the rest of the world, you know, particularly the West, Western Europe, was actually quite backward and comparatively poor.
Now, that would change over time.
I think we're going to have to cooperate and accommodate their arrival on the scene.
And I wouldn't see it as necessarily anything...
Desperately bad for us, but we have to adjust here at home.
We have to change the character of our economy in order to fit in now with these others.
In the past, everyone had to change, certainly since World War II, to accommodate us.
Well, that's no longer true.
Interesting, which will bring up my next question.
If we shouldn't see China as the biggest threat, you say we need to cooperate with them.
Are they the nation we need to, let me phrase it this way, are they the nation, if not the greatest, we shouldn't see them as the greatest threat, are they the nation we need to be cooperating with the most?
I think the way to look at it is as follows.
We tend to see military threats everywhere.
We have become, you know, the global bully.
Either you work with us, you obey us.
You submit to the SWIFT system, you do what the World Bank tells you to do, the World Health Organization, all these things that grew up under our tutelage, or you are going to be treated badly.
So we've been in the business now for decades of telling people in Costa Rica, Brazil, and other places what crops you're going to grow.
We want you to grow these crops, not some others.
That's over.
That's ending.
And I think...
We have to look at China not as a military threat, because I don't think it is at all, despite the fact that everybody is very enamored with their parades, you know.
Lots of parades, but does any of it make any sense?
I don't think it does.
You have to look again at the historical cultural foundations.
China is not an expansionist power.
The only time the so-called Chinese state or empire expanded at all was when they were ruled by the Mongols.
And out of 500 years, the last 500, about 320, 340 of those years, China was ruled by foreigners.
Finally, Europeans.
That's why they refer to the last century or so as the century of humiliation.
Because the Chinese had no control over their own country, over their own people, over their own culture, nothing.
Remember, they actually fought the British Empire because the British Empire was determined to introduce opium into the country.
And ultimately, they succeeded.
And China went through hell dealing with opium additives all over the country for years.
China's been through a lot.
It's not looking for a war.
The Chinese will do anything to avoid a war.
What they are interested in is stability and peace.
I don't know if you saw it, but it was announced recently that the Japanese, Koreans, and Chinese held a discussion recently in Tokyo, as I understand it, They all agreed to cooperate economically and they're becoming very integrated, those economies.
Again, you've got to go back through history.
Why did the Japanese and the Chinese fight?
Because the Japanese were not allowed into the Chinese market unless they paid tribute to the Chinese emperor.
The Japanese were not going to pay tribute to anybody.
And so the Japanese went to war repeatedly because they wanted access to the market.
Soon after Xi took over, he said, We want to open our markets to you, Japan.
Well, as soon as you said that to the Japanese, the proverbial hatchet was buried.
In other words, we're not asking for tribute.
You want to have access to our markets.
Here we can build this organization of cooperation and we can trade in one another's currencies.
We don't need to go through the SWIFT system.
We don't need to use dollars.
All of this is music to the ears of the Japanese, the Koreans, and the Chinese.
Now, why?
Because we are seen as destabilizing.
And I predict that over the next few years, you're going to see North Korea denuclearize, demilitarize, if you will, and ultimately we will be compelled under pressure from the Koreans and then subsequently the Japanese to leave those countries to get our armed forces out.
Because that's what the Chinese are interested in.
They want Asia for Asians.
They're happy to do business with us, but they don't want our military power on their doorstep.
And you could actually go further and say that that's effectively what Putin has said.
I don't want American military power under the guise of NATO sitting on Russia's doorstep in a position to do us harm.
So we are seen as a destabilizing element that is too quick to turn to military power, too interested in threats on every level to push people in directions we want them to go.
And this is driving away So well said.
And I have so many other questions now.
One, just on your comment about North Korea potentially denuclearizing.
Where would that pressure come from?
Why would they surrender that?
Who rules Asia de facto?
Who's the most powerful figure in Asia?
Xi. Xi is effectively the Chinese emperor.
That's what you're dealing with, alright?
The Chinese do not want a war.
When the Chinese look at North Korea and South Korea, they see something similar to what the Soviets saw in East and West Germany.
South Korea is West Germany.
North Korea is not East Germany.
It's far worse.
It's impoverished.
It's circling the drain.
It survives largely on subsidies from Russia, which I can explain if you want to go through that.
But the point is, You want to get rid of this man Kim and this regime because if left unchecked, that's the greatest single danger to stability, peace and progress in Asia.
This is why when President Trump went to Hanoi with this so-called plan of denuclearization, I and many others urged him to press forward with this.
Remember when he crossed the border, just walked over to see Kim.
That was hugely important because it signaled that we didn't want a war.
We didn't want conflict.
And we were prepared for an agreement that would allow North Korea over time, not immediately, but over time to denuclearize, which was really the heart of the issue, in return for which North Korea and eventually South Korea would probably merge.
Because right now, Beijing would very much like to see the Republic of Korea take over the peninsula.
And the emperor said, sign the agreement.
Do it.
At which point in time he had no choice.
He had to do that.
So that was a terrible missed opportunity.
We are now with each passing day in Asia less and less strategically and economically relevant.
That's the point.
So as we look into the future we're going to be gone militarily.
The question is where will we fit in economically?
And that's a question I can't answer because that depends on a whole range of policies.
But the approach with the tariffs I don't think is going to be the right one.
Tariffs are like everything else.
If you use it surgically, if it's carefully targeted for a limited purpose and a limited period of time, you could be successful.
But again, we're dealing with the machine gun.
We're just shooting targets everywhere all at once, sending the world into a kind of trauma.
But it's telling the world we're a problem.
We're dangerous.
One more point before I move on to Europe.
Because I hear everything you're saying.
And if we listen to President Trump, since day one, he said he wants peace.
He doesn't want America involved in wars.
But on the other side of the equation, like you're saying, we see this talk of, you know, I want Greenland.
I want Canada.
Almost like running a Roman Empire once again.
So where's the truth?
Well, Danielle...
Keep something in mind.
From the end of the Second World War until the present, Northern Canada, Greenland, Northern Norway, effectively the Arctic in the West, has been under our control anyway.
Of course.
We don't need to invade anybody up there.
And all of those people that live in those areas have all become accustomed to it.
And they have appreciated it.
This business of saying, well, the Canadians are freeloaders.
You know, I don't like that because that's not entirely true.
First of all, the Canadians have a right to govern themselves any way they want.
But if we go back historically, once again, when we've needed Canadian support in the world wars, in Korea and so forth, they showed up.
We've embarrassed ourselves in a number of military interventions over the years that made no sense.
They were losing propositions.
It is no surprise that our allies have essentially walked away from us.
And we can start with that in'65 in Vietnam and go all the way up to the present.
I think, again, this is back to the world has changed, views us differently.
President Trump seems to be a little schizophrenic.
On the one hand, right, he talks about peace, but his behavior is threatening.
And this latest approach with Iran is catastrophic.
Because it's not just Iran.
Again, the Middle East has changed.
The Middle East is not as backward and incapable as we tend to think.
We tend to view, well, the Arabs, you can boss them, bully them, threaten them.
They can do nothing.
They're irrelevant.
Not true.
And right now, you have hundreds of millions of Muslims all over the region, not just Arabs, but Turks and Persians, all of whom are appalled and disgusted with what we have bankrolled in Israel.
Now we're threatening Iran, a nation of almost 100 million, with effectively what they call a nation-ending existential strike.
In other words, we're going to go in there with such force, the government and the population, the society may collapse and crack.
Well, what's happened?
The Chinese, who have investments in Iran, but also are trying to build this Belt and Road, which depends upon, in large measure, Iran.
And other countries in Central Asia and Southwest Asia said, no, we will stand by Iran.
And one of the Russians said, well, of course they're going to stand by Iran.
People forget that because Iran was in friendly hands during World War II, the Soviets were able to move all of their military industry that had not been captured and destroyed by the Germans beyond the Urals.
Well, if you look at Iran, Iran is effectively a giant fortress.
Once you're through the fortress and you're on the other side of the mountains, You're on the Central Asian step.
It's flat.
There is no defense.
The Russians are not going to allow a hostile power to destroy and then potentially occupy or manipulate or influence Persia in a way that would lead to that kind of insecurity for Russia.
There's no sense of this with the administration, no strategic understanding.
And so we're headed into, I would say, a war that will finally put the nails in the coffin of this crazy thing they call the post-war international liberal order, which I think is more imaginary than real.
It'll kill it.
There'll be nothing left.
And I don't know how we'll come out of it.
But I don't think we're going to come out of it looking very good.
If he does, we will not benefit.
So, Colonel, that said, if I were to ask you where you think the hotbed for a potential next war would be, I mean, is it a China-Taiwan and EU versus Russia, the Middle East?
It's in the Middle East.
That's the dangerous spot.
The Chinese aren't interested in going to war over Taiwan.
The only reason that they become alarmed is because of us.
We moved from the one China policy.
To a new position that's designed to threaten China.
And all of this from Taiwan.
And remember, Taiwan is as important to them strategically as Cuba is to us.
What happened when the Russians moved into Cuba with missiles and equipment and troops?
What did we do?
The world came to the brink of nuclear war between Russia and the United States.
The Russians weren't stupid.
They knew that they had exceeded There are limitations and they backed off.
We subsequently backed off somewhat in Turkey as well.
In other words, we did come to an agreement.
The point is that China is not going to back off from Taiwan.
Taiwan was the unsinkable aircraft carrier for the Imperial Japanese Armed Forces during World War II.
Every major invasion and attack on China launched by the Japanese Really came through Taiwan.
It was the staging area, not just for that, but for the invasions of the Philippines, Southeast Asia, and all the warfare in the South Pacific.
The Chinese are not going to allow that country to be hostile.
Now, finally, this is the other thing that no one in the mainstream media ever mentions.
There are two competing political parties in Taiwan.
One is the old party of the Kuomintang.
They started with Chiang Kai-shek when he came over from the mainland.
And the other is a more indigenous party with ties to the Japanese and increasingly us.
Those two parties are in competition.
If the Kuomintang, the old party, which is gaining on the local level dramatically, if they should win power and also get the presidency, they are liable to join China voluntarily.
And if you look at the polling data, the people that live in Taiwan have made it abundantly clear under no circumstances do they want a war with China.
And we cannot win a war over Taiwan against China for the same reason China couldn't win a war over Cuba against us.
I want to turn to Europe now.
You mentioned the unity we see forming between The Asian countries and how that will, you know, get them the win.
Why are we seeing Europe, the EU, dismantling them before our eyes?
Why isn't the EU working?
And I know you raise a very good point about the globalist ruling class, you know, with Marie Le Pen now being thrown in prison.
You think a revolution will take place in France within a matter of weeks?
Why are we seeing the dismantling of the EU?
The European Union, when it was largely focused on economics in terms of facilitating trade across European borders, was successful.
I mean, when it was exclusively economic in character, and it made it easier for the Italians in Milan to sell to the Germans in Hamburg, or the French in Paris to sell to other Europeans in other parts of Scandinavia or Austria or somewhere else, that was seen as a very positive thing.
But then we saw this gradual transformation as this so-called globalist class that believes in no borders and integrating the world into an amorphous mass of consumers, which is really at the heart of their thinking.
It's what I call modern-day Bolshevism.
And so we went through all sorts of iterations of this.
You'll recall the Maastricht Treaty that suddenly conferred power on the unelected EU bureaucrats to make decisions regarding laws in Germany, laws in Spain, laws in Portugal.
Anyone who's been to Europe knows that Europe is inherently diverse.
Now, I happen to think that's a good thing.
In other words, Europe is, for our intents and purposes, let's put it this way, it's a fountain.
If water is purest at its source, then Europe really is the fountainhead of our civilization.
Everything we have here is from Europe.
Our laws, our way of life, our thinking, and so forth.
Now, are they different from us?
Of course.
Each of these regions is different.
They're different for reasons, and this attempt to homogenize and push everyone in the same direction politically has failed miserably.
The British opted out more on that basis, I think, than almost anything else.
Everybody was focused on economics because most of this globalist elite is Marxist.
They don't think human beings count for anything.
For them, all human beings are fungible commodities.
In other words, Race, religion, ethnicity, culture, the things that define us, what makes us who we are, these things have been dismissed out of hand as irrelevant.
Well, it's been a huge failure.
Don't tell the Europeans that if they're German or Polish or Swedish or Italian that they're irrelevant.
I'm sorry.
They are who they are.
They've been that way for thousands of years.
Now, it's time for, we need to take the lesson from this.
And understand that as a last-ditch effort, this globalist ruling class that has failed so miserably politically in Europe is doing everything in its power to build up this phony threat in Russia.
The Russians are not interested in invading Western Europe or Eastern Europe.
If they learned anything from the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact is that they don't want to rule people who are not like themselves.
This was Alexander Solzhenitsyn's Great lesson to the Russians.
He said, let all of these other people go.
We want to build essentially a Russian Orthodox Christian state.
And he, like many Russians, regarded the Ukrainians, at least those to the east of the Upper River, as much like themselves, admitting that the ones in the West are different.
They're closer to Poles and Lithuanians.
But my point is, this is a dangerous attempt to stay in power and prolong this.
It's not going to work.
We're going to wake up in the next couple of years and all of these governments, Macron, Starmer, Metz, all these characters that have all these sinister connections to things like BlackRock and Soros, they'll be gone.
Now, how much bloodletting there will be, how much violence, I have no idea.
And that's probably going to vary from country to country.
But I do think it's probably going to start in France.
The French have a real appetite for revolution when they get the...
So a few years from now, no more EU.
a complete dismantling of the union?
Well, you'll end up with something else.
In other words, they'll come to agreements on economic terms.
Everybody wants to continue to trade.
Everybody is now going to control their borders.
They've learned the hard way by admitting millions of people that are not Europeans into the continent that they put their very existence at risk.
So that's going to be sorted out.
But I think you'll have some arrangement that is designed to facilitate prosperity.
And I think that's the bottom line.
Everything everybody in the world today is about, with the exception of the United States and Israel, is prosperity.
To get prosperity, you need stability.
You can't declare peace overnight, but you've got to have stability.
Then you get prosperity and eventually you can have meaningful peace.
That's what we achieved after World War II and it's worked very well for us.
It's breaking down now because the people in charge have abused it and mismanaged it.
So I think the future is going to be very different from what we think right now.
We're only beginning to get a glimpse of it and we should not see it necessarily as a threat to us because what have we discovered here in the United States?
If nothing else...
President Trump's greatest contribution has been to awaken Americans, the Americans, the American people, that seem to have been asleep for a very long time to the kinds of realities that the Europeans are struggling with right now.
Now, what he does with this, that's another question.
On the topic of unity, there's been discussion of having a Canada-US unity.
Now... Many will argue culturally there are great differences between Americans and Canadians, but we are alike in many ways.
Would it make more sense than an EU?
You know, I think that we need to be a little more circumspect.
Canada has a serious problem.
Well, I would say three serious problems.
Number one, you have the French.
The joke for many, many years.
I hadn't been to Canada in a long time.
I was there recently in Vancouver.
But I was up there in the 1960s.
It was very clear that you had people that lived in Quebec and they knew who they were.
They were French.
Then you had others who spoke English and they called themselves Canadians.
But when you scratch the surface, the old British connections and cultural underpinnings We're weakening.
And that was allowed to happen to the point where the average European living in Canada who speaks English is very similar to us.
Not to the point where we could never live together or cooperate.
Of course not.
But they are very similar to us.
And then you have another problem.
Their immigration system is posing a huge threat to Canada's societal cohesion.
There are vast areas filled with foreigners.
From Asia and other continents that live self-contained.
They have Canadian citizenship but no one calls them a Canadian.
They say, oh, the Indians, the Chinese, and so forth.
Countries that go through this don't last.
They fall apart.
So I think Canada stands an excellent chance of fragmenting.
I don't think we have to get involved with it and I think that we can help them manage it.
But I think it's a mistake to assume that everybody's going to rush into our arms and say, oh yeah, let's join America.
The other thing is, we have to come home and look carefully at how we govern ourselves.
Danielle, we have this thing called the Constitution.
Everybody worships it.
Okay? When was it written?
1789. What was the population for which that government was designed?
Overwhelmingly, 95% English speaking.
And mostly British, with a few Germans, Austrians, Finns, Swedes thrown in there, and Dutch.
My point is, we've changed.
We're a nation of 350 million.
We have all these 50 states, and everybody's very emotional about the 50 states.
Is that really the way we want to do business here?
Are we going to look at some alternatives?
You know, I spent time with a delegation of Chinese officers led by...
The president of the Chinese National Defense University.
This is when I was still on active duty in the Army.
This is about 2001.
And one of the topics that came up for discussion was how do we govern China?
Because within China itself, you had four, maybe five versions of our country.
You know, the population is so large.
How do we govern it?
And everyone agreed, well, we're going to have to go to a decentralized system, but there has to be a governing body in Beijing to ensure that the country doesn't fly apart.
But we cannot make all decisions in Beijing.
So they were looking at larger portions of the country that would then have economies of scale that could concentrate or focus on certain economic production specialties.
In other words, they were reexamining Charles How do you do it?
We need to do something similar.
Before we talk about Absorbing anybody else.
Fascinating insights.
Thank you so much for this conversation, Colonel.
Hey, for a beautiful woman like you this early in the morning, this is a real pleasure.
Thank you, Colonel.
I guess just final thoughts for all the viewers watching.
I have many people emailing me daily so concerned about the state of the world.
Final thoughts for Concerned citizens here, Colonel.
If we do not deal decisively with the illegal aliens and the cartels that work within that framework inside the United States, literally go to war inside our country after we seal this border.
And I mean seal it.
I'm not talking about what we've got right now.
I've got a show coming out very soon.
It's just called McGregor.
It'll be streaming over the internet.
And the first chapter is the border.
And one of the things we discovered when we went down there and met people and talked to people was, sure, we've stopped massive waves of immigration, but where does most of the illegal human trafficking and drugs come in?
Comes in through the legal crossing points.
Because most of the officers on any given day down there are paid off.
So we've got to change the personnel.
We have to have a different system to deal with those legal crossing points.
But we have not fundamentally shaken the death grip in which the cartels hold our country.
That should take top priority.
That's our future.
If we don't do that, we will not last out another decade.
It'll be chaos here.
We'll look worse than Mexico.
So I'd say that's number one.
That's where we should focus.
What we're doing now economically...
I think we're going to have to wait and see, but I have serious doubts about it.
But the good news is, if it doesn't work, we get out of it.
Stop it and do something else.
The next danger for us is the Middle East.
Bankrolling this war for Israeli hegemony is dangerous.
And people don't think so.
They don't understand it.
They don't see the impact over there or on the rest of the world.
That's got to stop.
If we press ahead and we attack Iran, I would say that the combination of our economic problems, the failure to deal with illegal immigration on the scale that it deserves, and the criminality that it breeds, and the war will destroy us.
Colonel, I thank you for your service and your time again today.
Hope to see you soon.
Okay. Bye-bye.
And thank you all for watching.
We'll have more coming your way on the Daniela Kamboné Show.
Be sure to stay tuned.
And sign up and of course subscribe to our channel.
▲
Export Selection