The Canada Pension Plan’s $392B portfolio faces scrutiny as a $900B unfunded liability "Ponzi scheme," per OSFI, while its CPPIB arm invests in Chinese surveillance firms like Hikvision and Dahua—used to monitor Uyghurs in Xinjiang—despite U.S. blacklisting efforts. Contrast this with divestment from U.S. detention operators GEO Group and CoreCivic, exposing potential double standards in "woke" investment policies. Meanwhile, Kamala Harris emerges as the likely Democratic nominee due to her identity politics appeal, despite policy flip-flops and weak campaign organization, risking Trump’s exploitation of her perceived mismanagement. The episode reveals how progressive institutions may prioritize ideological agendas over ethical consistency, undermining trust in their financial and political integrity. [Automatically generated summary]
Hey Rebels, I've got a bit of a change of pace for you today.
I look at the Canada Pension Plan and some of the companies around the world they've been investing in, including companies in Communist China.
You might find it interesting.
Can you do me a quick favor?
Can you consider going to the Rebel.media slash shows and becoming an $8 a month premium subscriber?
You know what, though?
If you buy a year-long subscription, it's only $80, and if you enter the coupon code Podcast, it's even less.
And you get the video version of the show, which I think is pretty great.
And you get other perks like Sheila Gunread's show and David Menzie's show.
So that's all at the rebel.media slash shows.
All right, here's today's podcast.
Tonight, how should your pension plan be invested for the greatest rate of return by professional managers?
We're subject to a veto by woke politicians.
It's July 9th, and this is the Astral Levant Show.
Why should others go to jail when you're a biggest carbon consumer I know?
There's 8,500 customers here, and you won't give them an answer.
The only thing I have to say to the government about why I publish it is because it's my bloody right to do so.
Exciting news today in the Toronto Star.
They're quoting an NDP member of parliament who referenced some public filings.
And according to those very reliable sources, the Canada pension plan has sold off its stock in private companies that run migrant detention centers in the U.S. By the way, here's a Human Rights Watch report that shows Canada detains children who try to illegally immigrate to our country too.
About 240 kids a year, according to this report.
Of course we do.
Every country does, but it's easier for the Toronto Star to hold Donald Trump to account than to hold Justin Trudeau to account.
And of course, Donald Trump doesn't have a $600 million bailout for Canadian newspapers for the Star, like Trudeau does.
But I'll come back to that news in a moment.
I just want to give you a word about the CPP itself, the Canada Pension Plan.
Let's be honest.
No one under the age of 60 is going to get their money back from the Canada Pension Plan.
It's not actuarily sound, as in it's not a true investment.
It's political, designed by politicians who, of course, have a very strong bias towards winning the very next election, not ensuring your pension is fully funded decades from now.
I mean, the CPP pension plan started paying out right away, immediately after it was created.
So those very first retirees, they were just getting a government grant.
It wasn't a true return on their own investment that they were getting back.
They were taking money from future generations, of course.
The Canadian Pension Plan Investment Board, they had a pretty flashy website, and they're pretty proud of themselves.
They have $392 billion under management, they say, with an 11.1% rate of return.
Now, that's what they'll earn on your money.
That's what they'll earn, though, because you will actually get a negative rate of return.
Because your money that you pay every time you get a payroll deduction, you know, you see the CPP taken off it, it's not set aside for you in your own account marked with your name, like a real pension plan or a real bank account or an RSP.
It just goes into a giant pot.
And people who retire before you, well, they already spent some of that money on them.
People retiring today are taking some of your money from the future.
So by the time you actually retire, you won't even get your money back.
You literally would do better if you stuck your money in a mattress.
Or as a more normal country might do, let you have your own pension plan, lets you invest your money yourself, as many Canadians do with an RSP.
I want to tell you that $392 billion, that sounds incredibly impressive, doesn't it?
But a few years back, they were audited by the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions.
That's basically the bank's regulator.
And they found that the CPP's unfunded liability, that is the money they would owe everybody if they actually made good on their promise, versus the money they have, they're short about $900 billion.
And that's getting worse every year.
They're missing two-thirds of what they need to be able to keep their promise to everyone.
So yeah, all of a sudden, $392 billion doesn't sound so big when they're missing $900.
So the whole thing's political, that's my point.
Now, few politicians have the courage to do anything about this, because making things fair for future generations means making them less rich for today's retirees, which means reducing the overpayments today.
That's tough politically.
Stephen Harper was taking baby steps in this regard.
I think he was slowly making the retirement age when you could claim CPB a little bit higher.
I think it was a month, a year, if I recall, he was planning to do.
So no one would suddenly be cut off or anything.
It would just slowly be made more sustainable.
Remember, when the CPP was created in 1966, life expectancy in Canada was about 72.
And you didn't get your pension until I think it was 69.
So frankly, the average Canadian wouldn't collect it until very late in life.
The average Canadian would only collect it a few years before they passed away.
Now the age is being reduced to, what, 65?
You can even get a partial pension at age 60.
By the way, the life expectancy is now 82.
So instead of three years on a pension, you got 20 years on a pension.
So yeah, it's not a real pension plan, folks.
It's just not.
But let me put that aside.
Because the mandate of the CPP Investment Board, no matter how bad it is, their job is to make as much money as they can, to do their best to pay at least a fraction of what you've given to the government in CPP deductions over the years.
And they say they're nonpartisan.
They say they make their decisions where to invest as professional money managers, not as political appointees.
So they say.
Now, that doesn't mean they're not infected by politics.
Here's their report on sustainable investing, which is just their way of saying being a left-wing woke investor, which is always dangerous.
Now, I read the document.
It says the words diverse or diversity exactly 50 times.
But that doesn't mean diversifying your portfolio to manage the risk.
That's what diversity used to mean in investment.
No, no, no, no.
They mean affirmative action quotas, you know, like how Justin Trudeau appointed his cabinet, racial and gender quotas.
The CPP Investment Board has a quota champion on their staff, senior person, whose job it is is to replace white men with women of color.
How race or gender have anything to do with financial returns, I don't quite know.
To me, they're just demanding racism and sexism.
But hey, it's 2019, so roll with it.
Let me read to you from Adriana Morrison, their diversity queen.
She was asked, can you discuss your group's work on gender diversity and how it fits into the new focus area?
And she said, our gender diversity work has been one catalyst for this new focus area.
We identified lack of gender diversity on the boards of our investee companies as a business and financial risk a few years ago and have since ramped up our proactive work to address this issue in a number of ways.
Okay, got it.
So the Canada Pension Plan, what they do with your money is they invest it in companies, right?
So they do their due diligence on a company.
They look at companies that are doing really well in business, not just in Canada, but around the world.
Do they have a good business plan?
Do they have a reliable team?
Successful track record?
Are they growing?
Is it trustworthy enough a company to put Canadians' pension money?
And after all that due diligence, after checking it and kicking the tires and reading the financials, the CPP invests money in them.
And then the CPP starts lecturing those companies about replacing their management and their board of directors with quota hires.
Yeah, forget the guys who built the company.
Where are the women?
50% women's 2019.
Yeah, not smart.
But I'll come back to that in a moment because I think it's a lie, actually, that whole diversity thing.
I'll explain in a moment.
Let me quote one more part of this diversity wokeness report that I got right off their website.
Why does CPPIB not divest?
That stands for CPP Investment Board.
And divest means why does the CPP not sell stocks of companies that they disagree with politically.
I mean, you've heard about woke investors divesting from oil and gas companies in some climate statement or divesting or boycotting from Israel and selling companies there as some anti-Israel statements.
So does the CPP do that?
And here's their answer.
They say, our responsibility is to maximize investment returns without undue risk of loss.
Eliminating entire categories of potential investments would not be consistent with that mandate.
Risks of divestment include missing out on potential returns needed to support CPP beneficiaries or being compelled to sell assets at sub-optimal times.
That's a pretty good answer.
See, they're not investing their own money, right?
They're investing your money, so they should maximize your rate of return.
That's called a fiduciary duty.
It's actually the law.
If individual Canadians who get their CPP payment want to spend their CPP checks on their own politics, have at her, but not the investors, not the bankers.
So the CPP does say that they use their rights as shareholders to nag the companies in question.
You heard from their quota queen earlier.
They say they press for change from the inside.
Let me quote.
In general, CPPIB believes we can more effectively press for positive change by being an active, engaged investor than we can by sitting on the sidelines.
CPPIB treats ESG factors as an integral part of our investment considerations.
The aim is win-win, more responsible corporate behavior from investees and higher returns for 20 million contributors and beneficiaries.
Okay, so now you're thinking, maybe it's all just BS.
Maybe it's just pinkwashing.
Maybe they just want to make maximum money, but they know they have to hire a few token blatherers like this woman who's really woke on climate and gender.
And as long as she's just squawking and they publish this big report, that'll do.
And they're just really going to make money.
They're not actually going to quit investing in, say, American fracking companies just because some hippie handcuffs themselves to the bank door.
But back to the news peg of today that I read at the very beginning.
I'll read a bit more of it than I did before.
This is from the Toronto Star again.
Canada Pension Plan divests from U.S. companies involved in migrant detention camps.
Canada's largest pension fund has quietly divested from two American private prison operators deeply involved in the detention of thousands of Latin American migrants at the southern border of the United States, according to New Democratic Party MP Charlie Angus.
When I want an expert in pension funds and investments and money stuff, I look no farther than Charlie Angus.
He's the guy on the left in this video at this investment strategy conference.
Oh, sorry, that's not an investment strategy conference.
That's just some socialist MP who plays the guitar.
He's got strong opinions on how the CBP should be managed, people.
Anyways, let me read some more.
In a letter Thursday to Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Chief Executive Mark Macken, Angus noted that the Crown Corporation's recent filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission no longer listed investments into the two companies involved.
A welcome change, Angus wrote.
The Guardian reported late last year that the CPPIB held millions of dollars in stock in the GEO group and CoreCivic, two private firms that hold the majority of contracts from the federal government to manage several migrant detention centers in the U.S.-Mexico border, camps that have come under fire for severe overcrowding and squalid conditions.
Now, to be honest, I do not know why the CPP divested from those companies.
Maybe they got a great offer for them.
But Charlie Angus and the leftist extremists like the Guardian newspaper have been hassling them, so who knows?
Maybe they did out of the pressure.
I don't know.
But let me point out a few other things about the CPP Investment Board that don't seem to bother Charlie Angus or the NDP or The Guardian or the Toronto Star or really anybody on the left.
Here's a news story just from a couple months ago from BNN Bloomberg, the business channel.
Let me read some of the text to you.
Headline, CPPIB mulls opening first office in China.
The Canada Pension Plan Investment Board, which manages about $368.5 billion, is considering opening its first office in China as it seeks greater exposure to the world's second largest economy.
Oh, okay.
So China has obviously declared a trade war on Canada.
They have banned our agriculture, banned canola, banned any crops from the West, banned all meat.
And if you care about, you know, diversity and human rights and all the things that quota queen that the CPP was talking about, you know, there's that little thing about two Canadians being held hostages there.
But, you know.
All right, I'll read some more of the story.
It's about the diversity hire, the CPPIB, who's going to head up their new shop.
Prior to joining CPPIB in 2007, Kim worked at Ontario Teachers Pension Plan and Carlisle Group LP, where she never had a female boss.
When I started at Carlisle Asia Buyout Fund in 2002 at the Seoul office, I was the only female professional, Kim said.
There was no other female working in private equity in the country at the time.
Wow, that's changed in the years since.
Kim says gender bias is still quite common in the region.
All right.
All right.
So you've got China holding hostages, banning Canadian imports, but we're going to invest billions of dollars in them from our government-run pension fund because apparently investing in a dictatorship like that is sustainable and woke.
And after all, a girl is going to be managing it.
So there's that, people.
Here's another story from the same news network, BNN Bloomberg.
CPPIB CEO looking to grow China exposure despite trade uncertainty with the U.S. Let me read just a little bit.
The head of the Canada Pension Plan and Investment Board said he is looking to increase the investment manager's exposure to China, despite how the country's uncertain trade relationship with the U.S. is weighing on global markets.
Now, I read the story, and I read the last story too, and there's not a word about China's abuse of Canadians, the hostages, the bans.
Imagine the chumps they must think we Canadians are.
They take Canadian citizens hostage.
CPPPIB's China Quota Queen00:05:30
They don't even answer our foreign minister's phone calls.
And we say, hey guys, hi, can we give you some more money because you're like terribly sustainable and diverse?
Here's a Globe and Mail story about just what the CPP is investing in, by the way.
You're going to love this.
What companies is our money going into?
Let me read.
CPPIB conducts human rights checks on Chinese investments amid use of surveillance equipment on Uyghurs.
Uyghurs, those are the Chinese Muslims in that western province called Xinjiang.
I've been to Xinjiang, and although I was only there for a week, I certainly wandered around, and well, every single person I spoke to and met was Muslim.
And I got to say, it's the most laid-back Muslim community I've ever seen in my life.
Zero evidence to my eyes in my one week there of radicalization.
No burqas, no niqabs.
I think probably because they haven't been radicalized by either Iranian or Saudi money or the imams that come with it.
But still, China has put a million or more Uyghurs in concentration camps of sorts.
They're not death camps, but they're re-education camps, they're political punishment camps.
I'm generally skeptical about Islamic politics, as you know, but I have to say from my short personal experience, I'm pretty sympathetic to Uyghurs.
I just don't think they're like, say, Muslim radicals in Pakistan or Syria.
They're about as casual and laid-back as it gets.
I mean, speaking as a Jew, I was there for a solid week, really never spoke to anyone who wasn't Uyghur, and they literally had no thoughts or feelings about Jews or Israel at all.
It just wasn't on their radar.
It's probably the least anti-Semitic place in the Muslim world, to be honest.
I know that's just an anecdote, but that's what I saw.
But hey, no worries.
Canada is there to help the Chinese government surveil its own people using our government investors.
We're going to invest in the spying companies.
Here's what the CPPIB was asked by the Globe and Mail about that, and here's how they answered.
Let me quote the story.
Companies that violate human rights aren't positioned to succeed and have no place in any portfolio that exists to deliver risk-adjusted returns over multiple generations.
We are monitoring the practices of companies in this regard, said Michelle Leduc, global head of public affairs and communications at the CPPIB in an emailed statement.
In particular, he said, quote, the potential misuse of advanced technology is a concern.
Mr. Leduc was responding to questions from the Globe and Mail about the CPPIB's ownership of Chinese surveillance equipment companies that U.S. legislators want to blacklist for enabling state violations of human rights.
Oh, oh, okay.
So when we're pouring money into China, we're not investing in banks or airports.
We're literally investing in Chinese surveillance companies.
Oh, yes.
Let me read some more of the Globe.
Sorry.
Hangzhou Hickvision, Digital Technology Company, and Zhejiang Dahua Technology Company are major manufacturers of camera equipment that combines video surveillance with advanced computer technologies such as facial and gait recognition.
Human Rights Watch had a report this year titled China's Algorithms of Repression, identified HickVision as the winner of a contract to supply China's integrated joint operations platform, which undertakes mass surveillance in Xinjiang.
Hickvision is partly owned by China Electronics Technology Group, a state-owned military contractor.
So let me get this straight.
If the Toronto Star is to be believed, Canada's government-run pension investor, the CPP, is divesting from a U.S. company that, amongst its various operations, runs a detention facility for illegal immigrants, just like Canada has a detention facility for illegal immigrants, including hundreds of children.
So America is too immoral for us.
They're not woke enough.
They're not diverse enough, even though I should point out that a great proportion of Americans working in border enforcement are Hispanic themselves.
But the Canada Pension Plan that lectures foreign companies about being more woke, they are pouring millions of dollars into China, into companies there that spy on their own citizens, and if that globe story is to be believed, into companies owned by the Chinese military.
We're investing our Canada pension plan in the Chinese military.
I wonder if that quota queen flies over there to Urumqi.
That's the big city in Xinjiang.
And give little lectures to the local Communist Party spies about how they need to be more women spying on the Uyghurs.
It's not just a man's world anymore, people.
Women could be spies too.
Look, each to their own, I say.
If someone wants to invest in China, let them, unless there's sanctions on there.
I mean, some people like going on vacation to a prison island named Cuba.
I don't think that should be against the law.
But don't force me to do it with my money is my point.
Don't force me to divest from an American company that is enforcing the law and has been, by the way, under the Obama government, too.
And don't force me to positively invest in Chinese companies that are doing human rights violations, including one that's owned by the Chinese military.
Come to think of it.
Look, don't force me to invest at all.
At least not in a Ponzi scheme, a pyramid scheme, like the Canada Pension Plan.
Don't Force Your Ideas00:07:25
But really, but really, are you surprised by any of this?
In 2019, anti-Americanism is more important to this government than our own economic success.
Sounds like they've been taking economics and investment lessons from Justin Trudeau.
Stay with us for more.
Welcome back.
Well, you might recall about four years ago, one of the most exciting things to watch, at least for me, was the Republican Party's wide open presidential nomination race.
It was so colorful.
And of course, Donald Trump stood out from the pack.
Well, now the Democrats are going through that.
By one count, 24 Democrats have thrown their hat in the ring.
Obviously, a lot of no-hopers, but listen, Donald Trump, when he entered the race, he was in the low single digits.
You never know who's going to break out.
I even see in the news that Tom Steyer, the hedge fund manager who made billions in oil, gas, and coal, but has become an environmentalist lately, he's considering throwing his hat in the ring.
Joining us now, Vice Guy, from Chicago is our friend Joel Pollack, senior editor-at-large of Breitbart.com, to talk about it.
Hey, great to see you, Joel.
You're in Chicago, which is even more Democratic than your regular hangout of Los Angeles.
Well, you know, in Los Angeles, illegal aliens vote.
In Chicago, dead people vote.
So, you know.
Well, this is nice to see you.
Give us the latest on the Democratic race.
Is Tom Steyer, who made all his money in heavy industry before he saw the light, is he going to run for president too?
And if so, is that just another lark like Michael Bloomberg's on-again, off-again race?
Well, it's interesting.
I think it's a commentary on the weakness of the Democratic field.
There's a general consensus that the candidates did not look like any single one of them could beat Donald Trump.
And aside from that, there's also a consensus that they were too left-wing.
Now, Tom Steyer is not going to agree with the latter part.
He thinks they should have been more left-wing.
He thinks they should all have agreed to try to impeach the president.
But this idea that they're weak, I think, is also something that's pulling him into the race.
He thinks he can do what the others can't.
I don't think the candidates would agree, obviously.
And if there's one thing this field probably doesn't need, it's another left-wing Democrat because there are so many.
But anyway, he is supposedly telling people he's going to jump into the race.
He could do that.
He still could.
Plenty of time.
He's just got to reach certain benchmarks to qualify for the debates.
And I think most of the spots are already taken, so he'd have to get into some kind of a tie-breaking situation with people who are already qualified to be on stage.
There's some rumors Eric Swalwell might be dropping out at some point.
Maybe by the time people see this broadcast, he'll be gone.
We don't know.
But that could open up space for Steyer or others to enter the race or to move up.
And there's still no moderate candidate.
This is a field that is running to the left as fast as it possibly can.
New fundraising data just shows that Elizabeth Warren has raised $19 million, which is the second most after Pete Buttigieg, who's behind in the polls considerably, but he raised $24 million.
First gay candidate for president.
And a lot of it is coming from that network that he has, the LGBTQ activists, really tapping into the donor base there, giving him a lot of cash to play with.
Maybe he can push those poll numbers up if he can get the word out.
He can get some ads going, get some good campaigns.
So interesting things happening, but they're all just running to the left.
There's nobody hitting the brakes.
Even Barack Obama, back in 2008, was smart enough to say, hey, Hillary Clinton, your health care policy is too left-wing.
You can't force people to buy health insurance.
That's not American.
Well, of course, Obama's own policy would eventually force people to buy health insurance, but Obama knew at least to pitch himself to the center, even as he was intending to implement left-wing policies.
We don't even see that.
The left basically thinks they can run as far to the left as necessary to win the nomination and still come back and win in the general.
You know, there's so many candidates.
I wonder if I can ask you some quick snappers about some of them.
And I'd like to go through about five of them.
Can you give me like a one-liner on each of these?
I mean, maybe there's not much more to know than a one-liner.
But Joe Biden, I mean, eight years of the Obama aura rubbing off on him, but he's been plummeting in the polls, if I'm not mistaken.
What's going on there?
It's funny how nobody's really even talking about him in terms of his future prospects.
There's a kind of campaign death watch.
People are expecting him to drop out of the top spot, and that's because he's had an endless series of scandals from which he just can't recover.
And one thing after another, the problems with segregation and his comments about segregation, the problems with some of his other political views.
But look, Biden's having trouble speaking to a younger generation of American.
And look, he's been around forever.
And the others are starting to take pot shots at him.
Corey Booker is getting a few shots in.
So there's a sense that the sharks have smelt blood and they're circling.
And he's having real trouble getting past his remarks.
He did apologize a few days ago after saying he wouldn't for his remarks praising segregationist Democrats, which, by the way, he made recently.
I mean, these aren't old remarks somebody dug up.
He's been praising these people as recently as a few weeks ago.
So he's really in a tough spot.
It's hard to see how he can build on his current support.
How about Bernie Sanders?
I mean, he, in some ways, was the true on-the-ground victor against Hillary Clinton in 2016.
She won, some would say, because of the superdelegates, the ex officio delegates, and maybe even a little bit of vote tampering wouldn't shock me.
Bernie Sanders, does he have any momentum or energy left, or has he been outflanked on the left too?
Well, I don't think he's growing.
He's basically stuck in neutral.
And he's still up there in the top two or three.
But his fundraising numbers were surpassed by Elizabeth Warren in the last quarter.
And he is old.
Let's just put it that way.
He looked his age on stage, even though he's got a lot of energy, and I give him a lot of credit.
I mean, I've seen him up close and personal.
I've been on the campaign trail with him.
He's very energetic.
He's got more energy than most people half his age.
But still, his ideas are basically sounding the same.
The other problem he has is he has shown that you can run on those ideas without embarrassing yourself.
And so a lot of Democrats are imitating his ideas, adopting his ideas.
When he proposed Medicare for all in 2016, that was a radical idea here in the United States.
Now it's basically the policy of almost every Democratic candidate.
So basically his problem is he's become too successful at propagating his ideas.
They're no longer attached to him anymore.
And if people see a younger candidate with similar ideas like Elizabeth Warren, who by the way is not that much younger, she's only a few years younger.
She looks a lot better, if I can say that.
Using Native Identity Strategically00:06:14
Sorry, Bernie.
She looks pretty good.
She's 70 years old, but she looks very energetic and she looks like she is, if I can say this, 20 or 30 years younger than she actually is.
You can say that.
That's okay.
But let me ask you this.
I think that Donald Trump.
I can't say it the other way around.
I'm aware of that.
I think Donald Trump has so marked her on that whole false claim of being a status Indian.
I think that's the phrase in the United States, to get special privileges and hiring.
His nickname, Pocahontas, I found that so devastating.
Or maybe that's only how right-wingers think.
And maybe liberals and Democrats are sympathetic to her because Trump is bullying her.
What do you think?
I think she's totally damaged.
Am I wrong?
You are correct.
And the moment the race comes down to Elizabeth Warren versus another Democrat, if it comes to that, if it's down to two, that will be a weapon that finally comes out of the holster.
That will be an arrow that comes out of the queer.
Right now, they're letting it sit there because they consider it a Republican attack.
But the moment that Elizabeth Warren is any kind of threat to win the nomination, and there's another candidate who thinks they deserve the nomination, they're going to throw that at her.
And it's a legitimate attack because it is a form of exploitation, really.
It's a form of fraud.
I mean, this is the person who goes around campaigning, telling people that Wall Street's stealing their money and so on and so forth.
I mean, this is a scam.
She basically participated in a scam.
And I don't know if it got her hired.
It may have gotten her tenure.
There was a whole scandal at Harvard at the time about how they had very few minority faculty members at the law school and very few tenured faculty members.
And I think there was one who was denied tenure and so left the law school and that left them with one or two African Americans or something like that.
So I think she was already teaching or I don't know the details of the story exactly.
I remember we actually broke some of the details.
I know bits and pieces of it, some very well and some not so well.
But essentially, the way I understand it is that she used her quote-unquote Native American identity to advance her career, not so much in the sense of coming through the door as a Native American, but once she was on the faculty stating that she was Native American in some way or once she was a candidate for the position, something like that.
What's interesting is how little she did with the Native American community.
I mean, Harvard actually has a very active Native American program.
And the story I broke back in 2012 when Breitbart and a few other sites were documenting her fraud, the story I broke was that she had never participated in the Native American program at Harvard.
That is very hard to do.
If you are Native American at Harvard, this is a fantastic program.
I'm not Native American and I participated in the Native American program.
I mean, I had friends at college who were deeply involved.
I took courses on Native American politics.
You know, it's fascinating.
And Harvard was actually founded not just to educate the children of colonials, but also the children of Native Americans.
The idea was this would be a place to teach Native American kids.
And so it goes deep into Harvard's history.
And the idea that you would come there as a Native American and not explore any of that is just unbelievable to me.
Let me ask you one more question, and it's about Kamala Harris.
I mean, listen, I don't have the deep knowledge and experience you do, but, and of course, you're a Californian and she's a senator from California.
I think she's going to be the pick.
She's a visible minority.
She's a woman.
She looks young and energetic.
She's a senator right now.
She's got some name recognition.
She's smart and tough, I think.
I think she's the pick.
I think she's a disaster, but I think she's the pick.
What do you think of my prognostication?
I think you're right.
And I think she offers something for everybody in the Democratic Party.
I don't think she's a good presidential candidate.
I don't think she'd make a good president.
She's got one big weakness, which is that she has never managed anything well.
She has never excelled at any of the jobs she has held.
And if you go back to her Senate campaign in 2015, 2016, she raised a lot of money for that U.S. Senate campaign and burned through a lot of it very quickly.
She is not a good manager.
She's struggling even now to get her organization up and running in key places like Iowa.
Now, she's going to have the money to do it, and people like her, so she'll probably get it done.
But she's not a very good manager.
You're asking her to run against someone like Donald Trump who has made a billion, you know, he's made himself a billionaire through his management skill, through his ability to manage a business.
And now he's been managing the government for four years.
You might not like his style, but he's doing it very well.
And with Harris, I think that's going to be the big stumbling block.
She just does not know how to run things.
You can see that in her policies, which are all over the map.
She cannot decide from one day to the next whether she wants to take away private health insurance or not.
She gives one answer one day and one answer the next day.
And she's done that twice.
She's flip-flopped twice on that question.
That's not an accident.
She's basically not a person who manages things.
She's a crusader.
She's an issues person.
She's a party person.
She is the voice of the liberal gentry establishment in San Francisco.
She is the voice, in a sense, of the identity politics wing of the Democratic Party.
She can combine those two aspects, which makes her a very potent threat to win the nomination.
She could win the presidency, too, because she will bring out some of the minority voters that might have sat home last time.
And they'll feel pulled, I think, in two directions, at least those who like Donald Trump.
And there's some evidence that he's gaining in the Hispanic and black communities.
But I think she's a real threat.
I just don't think she's a good candidate.
And I think Donald Trump will be able to target her inexperience and actually her mismanagement to bring her down.
But I do think I agree with you.
I think she's the likeliest nominee.
Very interesting.
Well, I have a lot more questions about her, some things that I know about her that I'd love to discuss with you.
Grateful for Today's Discussion00:01:27
I think we've used up our time for today.
I'm very grateful to you for jamming us in.
I know it looks like you're on a family visit there.
Thanks for letting us in.
Working at the family homestead here.
Well, thanks for letting us in, and we're grateful always for your time and wisdom.
We'll talk to you again soon about Harris because I think she's going to be the pick.
There'll be a lot of time to cover that ground.
Thanks, my friend.
Okay, thank you.
All right, there you have it.
Joel Pollack, Sr. Editor-at-Large of Breitbart.com, joining us today via Skype from Chicago.
Stay with us.
More ahead on The Rebels.
But what do you think of today's show?
I think it's not that surprising that an investment board looking to put a third of a billion dollars somewhere is investing in China.
And I don't think it's surprising that it's investing in Chinese military stuff because they're a very authoritarian regime.
I just think the fact that at the same time they're lecturing the rest of us to be more woke and more human rights-y and diverse while doing business with the most brutal dictatorship in the world, I think that speaks to the hollowness of the whole politically correct movement, don't you?
Well, that's the show for today.
I'd like your point if you feel free to email me at ezra at the rebel.media until tomorrow.
On behalf of all of us here at Rebel World Headquarters to you at home, keep fighting for freedom.