Campaign Grows to Denaturalize US Citizens Involved in Fraud

Welcome to Crossroads. The Trump administration, they have a campaign right now to denaturalize U.S. citizens and they're expanding it. And the target, well, it's people accused of committing fraud, they're actually expanding it now. Sex offenders, others, people who've done other things like that. And all of this, including during the process of becoming naturalized citizens. Also beyond the issue of denaturalization, there's a campaign to look into visa fraud, And part of this, actually a huge amount of fraud, it turns out, is now being exposed with H-1B visas. They say up to like 90% in fact. And with that said, Trump had rolled out a plan to reduce the number of H-1B applications. That included putting a $100,000 fee on new filings. And a judge just shot that down. I'll be talking about these topics and a lot more today, so don't forget to hit the like button. Let's get started. All right, look, first of all, the Trump administration has a campaign to denaturalize U.S. citizens. They're expanding it right now. They've actually came out yesterday and detailed a bit of this. They're going to denaturalize drug dealers. Anybody involved in the drug trade might lose their citizenship. Sex offenders, going to lose their citizenship. And anybody who committed any type of fraud during the process of becoming a citizen. They're actually not even saying that, just fraudsters in general. So that might mean people who have committed any type of fraud even after becoming a citizen, even if it was not in the process of becoming naturalized. Let me show you this first, okay? CBS News, it says the Trump administration on Monday announced it is seeking to revoke the citizenship of 17 U.S. citizens accused of immigration fraud, expanding its unprecedented denaturalization campaign. I mean, briefly on this, 17 people ain't a lot, okay? 17 people is not a lot of people. It could expand a lot though, which is what they're talking about now. But back on this, they say CBS News exclusively reported about the plans before they were unveiled by the Justice Department, and its officials said the move represents the largest ever effort by the U.S. government to use its denaturalization powers, which were rarely invoked before President Trump returned to the White House last year with promises to launch a historic deportation blitz. Now, it's between 1990 and 2017, the Justice Department filed an average of just 11 legal complaints per year seeking to denaturalize American citizens. Historical figures indicate, it says, also that federal law has long allowed the government to try to denaturalize foreign-born U.S. citizens who officials believe committed fraud to obtain their citizenship, such as by concealing information like criminal conduct on their immigration applications. But it says the process has been historically lengthy, complex, and seldom exercised, requiring officials to persuade judges to strip naturalized citizens of their citizenship in civil or criminal proceedings in federal court. What does that mean? It means, look, you can have all the evidence on earth, you can have the strongest case possible, and if the judge doesn't agree or the jury, well, you're out of luck. They're here to stay, buddy, you're not going to get rid of them. Briefly on this, the Trump admin has actually been saying it's very, they've even said it's very hard to denaturalize people. Even if somebody is a literal terrorist, if they're a U.S. citizen, the denaturalization process is really difficult, which is why they're going after people who committed fraud in the process of becoming naturalized as kind of a default, because that's the easier way they're doing it. And what could that look like? If you concealed information during the process of it, if you committed fraud in the process of getting a visa before even applying for citizenship, if you did any type of that, then they could actually more easily do that to you. There's a lot of ways they can do this. For example, foreign criminal records, if they were concealed. For example, and this could be the big one, frankly, if a person is asked, are you or have you ever been a member of a communist party, something they do ask, and you say no, and you are a member of the CCP or the Youth League or the Young Pioneers, which a lot of people lie about, by the way, in China, they could actually denaturalize you if you concealed that or hid it or lied about it. It can also be people, for example, who committed various types of fraud in the process of maybe lying about their qualifications, and this could be a big one. I'll get into that in a little bit, but the Trump admin, they're actually exposing some of that as well. It looks like a lot of people were committing fraud even on the H-1B process, and a lot of it has to do with lying about education, lying about qualifications, things of that sort. Now, DHS responded to the CBS report saying this, they say, American citizenship is a privilege and it must be earned honestly. If you come here and break our laws and lie in your immigration proceedings, you forfeit that privilege. Now, look, again, they're talking about not just people who committed fraud, they're also talking about now drug dealers, and they're also talking about sex offenders. That could be difficult. On the drug dealer side, I think the one shot the Trump admin would really have is they've now designated many of the cartels and gangs, MS-13, Trende, Aragua, they actually made it pretty broad in the definition, so it could even include others. Also the way a lot of gangs operate is that they work together through their business operations, meaning if you've now designated gangs and cartels as terrorist organizations, if you've given material support to a terrorist org, if you've worked with them, which by the way, if you're involved in the drug trade, you are tied in with the cartels through some chain, they could potentially prove that. More so the ones trafficking larger amounts of drugs, by the way, like if you're a guy selling small bags on the street, it's going to be harder, but they could actually accuse the person of having terrorist ties or giving material support to a terrorist organization. They have not yet done that. That could be a way to do it. On the sex offender side, why does that matter? It's because juries, they might not be interested in deporting a drug dealer or someone who lied in their citizenship application, but they do tend to have a bit more feelings, let's say, on the negative sense, of course, towards sex offenders. That could be an easier case for them. We will see if the Trump admin actually rolls with that, but this is what they're saying right now. Again, they're not going to roll things out, I think, unless they have a case for it. The biggest challenge that Trump admin faces across the board right now is not so much doing things, it's getting it past the courts. Judges who don't agree with Trump, judges who disagree with some of the policies, they've been the biggest blockade they've been facing almost across the board, and that will probably continue. In the chat, Kathy Delia, you're saying, key components to the oath, renunciation of foreign allegiance, support for constitution, military service commitment, work of national importance, et cetera. Yeah, that's actually important too. I never took the citizenship oath because I was born right into it, like many other people, but I do know people who've taken the oath, including some good friends of mine, are naturalized citizens. I've been told of what that includes. It's actually very interesting. If you become a naturalized citizen, it's true, yet you have to swear an oath on many things that American-born American citizens never have to do. That is interesting because, as you mentioned, I do know that could include whether you have allegiance to another country. I don't know how they could enforce that. For example, I don't think that waving the flag of another country on the streets or saying, my own country was better, which a lot of them say, things like that, I don't think that would work. We will see if they can actually accuse them of violating their oaths. That's not being discussed right now, but that would be interesting. Now, beyond the issue of naturalization, though, there's also something else very big going on. As I mentioned, they're talking about potential fraud committed in the process of becoming a citizen. Some of that could be visa fraud. There's actually a very big campaign also to look into visa fraud, not just for potential denaturalization, but also in terms of just deporting people who've committed fraud in their visa process. I'll be talking more about this and the insane scale of it after we come back from a quick break. I tend to look at events a little differently than most people, not just what's happening on the surface, but the deeper patterns shaping the world around us. In today's world, economics is not just about markets. We've seen how authoritarian systems use economic pressure, control over resources, to create vulnerabilities that can be exploited. That's why I believe in owning something tangible, physical gold and silver from American Hartford Gold, the company I trust. These are tangible assets, not dependent on political systems or institutional stability. Gold has preserved value through inflation, currency shifts, and periods of global uncertainty. American Hartford Gold has an A-plus rating from the Better Business Bureau, thousands of five-star reviews. They can deliver gold and silver directly to your door, or help set up a gold IRA if you're thinking long-term and want to diversify your retirement. Right now, if you call and mention my name, Joshua, you can get up to $20,000 in free silver with your first qualifying purchase. Call 877-260-2764 or text JOSHUA to 65532 or click the link in the description below. Welcome back. There's now a campaign from the Trump administration to look into visa fraud, another type of fraud. And as part of this, well, it turns out an insane amount of fraud is now being exposed with H-1B visas. And the big focus of the claims actually came from former White House press secretary, that's Kayleigh McEnany, and host of Saturday in America on Fox News. Let me show you this. Watch. What is happening to our H-1B visa program? Take a look at this. The Department of Labor processed nearly 7 million visa holders since 2015. Over 70% came from India and nearly 12% from China. And when you zoom in on this map you're looking at, you can see where most are being hired. The dark red spots show a high density of H-1B visa holders. And now we're learning more about the fraud within the program. One former official tells Newsweek that up to 90% of applications, 90% from India contain fraudulent documents or involve unqualified applicants. And finance law enforcement in India claim it has uncovered a network of universities that produce fake degrees which were possibly used to obtain these high skilled H-1B visas. Now this could be a big deal. Part of the fraud she's mentioning, and it's not limited to this, but part of it is becoming a big deal actually in India right now. And India, they're actually going after this to an extent. Police in India arrested 11 people. They're running a big crime ring. And what they were doing was they were mimicking on 22 Indian universities and selling fake diplomas. That one little crime ring of 11 people was allegedly involved in working at different stages of this operation, printing, transporting, and foraging fake college degrees. And what they're accused of doing is basically creating this little group, like 100,000 fake degrees. That's a lot of fake, possibly H-1B visas. I assume not all this was H-1B. A lot of this could be people getting jobs in India. But one of the big ways they do this, H-1Bs or foreign migration or going to Europe or going to other countries. And they raise this issue because, look, that means you could have like an Indian professor or an Indian doctor and you don't know if they've got a real degree or not. This is going to be problematic for a lot of people. Again, India, the country itself is looking into this because it's not good. It's not a good image. And of course, that also means that everybody's diplomas is now kind of questioned. Now how would they actually prove whether there was fraud committed in this? My personal assumption is if the Trump administration is going to look into it, they're not really talking about this yet, but Fox News is. And frankly, when Republicans are in office, what Fox says tends to be pretty closely tied into the actions of the party. What this means is they can actually verify with the universities whether these are legitimate college degrees or not. Now will they do that? I don't know. Because what's important to note, although there were 22 different Indian universities that were being defrauded, it doesn't mean the universities themselves were involved. It means these 11 people were creating fake college diplomas using the names of these universities. That's why this actually matters so much. And of course, the universities are not going to want to have it so that people are using their names and basically making a mess of things. And also, frankly, for people with legitimate degrees, they're really going to want to fix that because it makes everybody look bad until it is fixed. This is also becoming a bigger issue, too, because this wasn't the first case we've heard like this. It turns out there's a lot of cases like this. There's actually a lot of cases like this getting exposed. A lot of it has been coming out of India. A lot of it's been coming out of China, too, actually. A lot of fraud coming out of China. But on this front, it's been mostly India. Now let me show you something else a bit further in. Now look, in Texas, Attorney General Ken Paxton said he's going to sue or is suing a Chinese childcare company. And what he's saying is this childcare company is allegedly involved in H-1B visa fraud. And he noted they're using AI, artificial intelligence, to find the individuals, which is interesting because AI is kind of fast-tracking a lot of these investigations. Right now what they're doing, they're currently investigating 30 businesses just in North Texas, again, accused of H-1B fraud. I know on this front also why this is such a big deal. Previously, I've been told, and this is kind of the funny middle ground with this, a lot of Chinese espionage actually uses H-1B visas. And the way it works, Chinese CCP spy comes here, forms a legitimate business, so it's an actual legitimate business, and they use H-1Bs to bring in spies. So it could be hackers, could be agents of influence, probably leave the hackers there because they're harder to catch. They'll bring spies in through the H-1B process. And it's very easy. Of course, if you build a business and you want to hire foreign workers, H-1B is the best way to do it. And one of the most common ways they do it is companies that do outsourcing for IT work, working on the computer systems of companies, which imagine if you have a bunch of spies working on your computers. Very common form of it, but it's not limited to that. And so they can kind of create a front company and then import the people they want through that process. It's not just H-1Bs either. They can get all kinds of different work visas. Very common form of Chinese espionage, which I've been told actually by former Chinese spies directly on that. Now with that said, Trump has actually been trying to roll out a plan to reduce the number of H-1B applications. This is again kind of a complicated issue. Even people around Trump, they want H-1Bs. Remember, Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, again, originally Vivek was of course with Elon Musk in the Doge department. Very strong advocates for H-1B visas. They kind of made it like a hill to die on, you know what I mean? They said this is the way that America stays competitive. This is one of the ways that we compete. Yeah, there might be fraud, but it doesn't override what they viewed I think is the value of these on that front. One thing Trump is trying to do to kind of put a cap on this, because you know, there's a lot of H-1B applications. He wanted to have a $100,000 fee on new H-1B filings, meaning if a company wants to bring in a foreign worker, they need to be worth it. You need to be worth a lot of money, $100,000. And a judge just shot that down. Let me show you this, the hill. It says a federal judge on Monday blocked a $100,000 fee for H-1B visa applications imposed by the Trump administration. It says U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin agreed with a group of Democrat-led states that the administration exceeded its authority and the fee usurped Congress's power to set immigration policy and taxes. Is this a tax? No, not really. This is not a tax. This is a fee on a immigration process platform. I don't know. I mean, should this be up to Congress? Should it be up to the president? That's still going to be debated. This is not going to be the end all be all, but let me show you this. It says last September, Trump signed a proclamation adding a $100,000 fee for new H-1B visa applications. It notes the fees are generally paid for by the sponsoring employer, and it says administration officials have cast it as an initiative to encourage companies to hire Americans instead. One of the big concerns with this, you have Americans at companies and companies like Disney's been accused of this. A lot of major tech companies have been accused of this. Company head comes in who's from a foreign country, fires the Americans, and then begins hiring people from their own country. There's been cases Disney was accused of this. They fired the Americans, and then they have the Americans before they're fired fully train their foreign replacements because they work for less money. And the way that H-1Bs are being kind of criticized on that front is it's not to get better talent, it's to get cheaper talent. What this does is it makes it so it's not cheaper talent. It's actually very expensive talent. And so the idea is if you're hiring an H-1B, it's because they need to actually be very qualified, which is the purpose of H-1B visas, not just cheaper to hire. That is the way that Trump was kind of framing this. Back to the article in the Hill, it says this, late last year, another judge who oversees a challenge to the H-1B visa fees brought by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Association of American Universities sided with the administration ruling Trump was within his authority. What does that mean? It means you have courts on two sides, Obama judge versus another judge, and the one who shot this down was an Obama judge, by the way, Obama appointed. You have two judges, different opinions, meaning the courts are split on it, meaning it's gonna keep going up to higher court. It notes an appeals court heard the chamber's bid to revive it in March. It could rule at any time, meaning, yeah, it's shot down temporarily. The battle ain't over yet. Trump's gonna keep fighting it, and we'll see what happens. It's gonna be determined whether the president sets immigration policy, because I don't think they can argue this is a tax. Again, it's a fee paid by businesses, not a tax. Congress sets taxes, of course. I think this is gonna be a big debate at the federal level, at the Supreme Court level probably eventually, so this is by no means over. Briefly on the $100,000 requirement for H-1B visas, I know a lot of people are freaking out over it. A lot of people were freaking out over it because a lot of people who have H-1Bs were like, jeez, they're gonna make us reapply for it, and a lot of them are. Do I have to pay $100,000? The administration clarified this, no. Reapplications are not charged the fee. It's only for new applications, so if you're here on an H-1B, at least as of now, you do not need to pay that $100,000. If you're applying for a new one, then yes. Although temporarily, maybe not because, again, the judge has made the decision. Although, look, it's gonna get challenged back and forth, probably until it hits the Supreme Court. In the chat, Yudi Akeem, you're saying, also, what will inspire the university education to be fixed, if employers just import cheaper work instead of donating to slash pressuring schools slash universities to educate people that have the right skills. What a concept, yeah. I know, actually, in other countries, this is more of a thing. In the US, ironically, not as much. I believe, because my daughter's looking for colleges right now, okay? I believe that in Ireland, for example, I know, because my daughter's applying, they have the university. I know in the UK, for example, all right, the university systems actually require you to kind of choose a major, and the classes you get are more focused on that major, including some of the testing processes. In the United States, not so much. You can get a degree in, I don't know, squirrel, biology, sexual science, which was a joke thing that was taken serious, by the way. That could actually be the basis to get a job at a company that has nothing to do with that, obviously. Especially if you're going into government or military, they tend to not really care what you studied, they just want to know you have a degree. In the US, it's not so much looked at what you studied, but more whether you have that piece of paper at the end. Other countries, not so much. Some businesses do care a lot about that, though. For example, obviously, law, medicine, certain types of technology, like businesses, they want to have people qualified for specific jobs, and a lot of jobs do want specific skills. The problem you have, of course, is when people are in college, they're not necessarily looking into that here. I know in the US, education is kind of framed differently than some other countries. Other countries, they oftentimes, again, they have very clear set paths. You need to study this if you want to do this. If you want to work in this industry, you've got to study that one thing. In the US, it's not as much. For example, in the US, again, if you're looking at job applications and stuff like that, oftentimes, the application says they require a college degree, they do not say they require a college degree in X, Y, or Z. They want to maybe have certain skill sets, but it doesn't mean the degree is focused on that skill set. It's true, actually, that in America, we have kind of a different standard on that. Some companies don't actually care that much. I do think the standard on this is changing quite a bit. In America, I think they do tend to look more at your qualifications than your education, but it does depend on the industry. In the Chatty Motion 007, they're saying, Josh, don't we have laws to hold these woke judges accountable? Not really. You're saying, why does it seem like they can do whatever they want, and all they get is a strike down in their ruling from the Supreme Court? The Supreme Court did limit this to an extent, but judges are still doing it. The way this is working is this. You might remember Trump's first year of the second term, everything he was doing was getting shot down. What judges were doing is they were putting temporary injunctions on basically all of his policies. Judges ... Hawaii judge, or Judge Bowsberg, who shot down a lot of Trump stuff, one judge in particular. What they were doing, they had different legal organizations, and they do what's called judge shopping, which means what? It means if you're a nonprofit or an NGO, and your whole focus is on legally challenging everything Trump does, and remember, prior to Trump becoming president, even during the campaign, there were Democrat organizations, and some Republicans working for them too, who were war gaming the future Trump administration. What were they doing? They were planning all the lawsuits and all the legal arguments they would use to challenge every single one of Trump's stated policies. Because when Trump was on the campaign trail, he made a bunch of videos, and they had project 2030, whatever it was. You had this, of course, big project coming out that was framed as the future Trump policies. All of that was public. You had organizations, NGOs, political organizations, key political figures. What they did was, is they worked with legal organizations, lawyers and stuff, to come up with ways to legally challenge all of these stated policies, meaning the lawsuits were prepared before the policies were initiated, because Trump discussed them. As soon as Trump enacted the policies, day one, he signed a lot of executive orders, you might remember. He even made a show of it during his victory rallies. You had, of course, people filing lawsuits. Obviously, if you file a lawsuit, and you have the ability to file it where you want to, you're going to judge shop, which many of these organizations did do, and they're going to go to areas where the courts are more likely to lean in their favor. At that time, what was happening, judges in various parts of the US who were getting these lawsuits, immediately put in place temporary injunctions against the policies. What that effectively did, is it froze nationwide the enforcement of whatever that action was. Most of Trump's policies were frozen through temporary injunctions. That eventually went to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, they struck down some of that. What the Supreme Court did, and this is where some of the confusion is, they made it so a judge in a single state does not have nationwide power. A judge, a federal judge, can make a ruling in a single state. A judge in New York, if they put an injunction against a Trump admin policy, the injunction holds in New York, but probably not for the rest of the country. That was based on the Supreme Court ruling. Even though they can freeze something, it doesn't affect the entire country. They can freeze it state by state. Of course, the way the appeals process goes, it has been moving pretty quickly. Back to the H-1B issue, my assumption is the Trump admin is going to, they're already challenging it. It's going to go to a higher court. It's going to be back on very quickly, and it's going to go to the Supreme Court eventually. What's my take on the way that's going to go? Frankly, it depends on the judge. I think my personal opinion, and I'm not a lawyer. I'm just a journalist for a very long time. My personal opinion is this. They're probably going to argue. Congress does have jurisdiction over some issues as it relates to taxes. Congress does not have jurisdiction over immigration. I think that is going to be part of the issue. Why is that my personal opinion? Historically, the federal government, its main role, the executive branch, is working on border security. Of course, managing migration and migration policy is part of that. I don't think that's up to Congress. I do think the president would have pretty broad authority on that front. There are people who disagree with me. Again, you have a split decision with the courts right now. I'm not saying my opinion is the absolute by any means. There are different opinions on this. I think it is going to be decided that Congress does get to have a say in taxes, but I think the final decision also is that having businesses, employers, pay for the application, right? Pay for the application, $100,000. I believe that that is going to actually make it so that, again, that's not going to be viewed as a tax. I think that's actually going to hold up. I think on that front, the Trump policy to make employers pay a fee, an application fee, on the H-1B visa process is going to be used as a bureau-type policy in terms of the way these processes work, and that will probably hold. Long analysis short, I think this is what's going to happen. They're going to clarify Congress has some power on immigration policy, not fully, and I think they're going to rule that this is, again, Congress does have jurisdiction over taxes to an extent, but I think they're going to say this is not a tax, it's a fee, and it is legal for Trump to probably uphold it to, again, force through the federal government employers to pay an application fee. They're going to probably say this is an application fee. That's my personal opinion. Agree with me, disagree with me. Tell me in the chat. Now, look, another big topic right now, the Pentagon is saying that some major Chinese companies are tied to the CCP's military. Let me show you this, right? Big deal. Reuters said this. The United States on Monday issued an updated list of Chinese companies it believes are aiding Beijing's military, including, guess what, e-commerce group Alibaba, which anybody who works in investment knows that's a big company. Internet search provider Baidu, funny story. China, the CCP, let Google into the country, stole Google's intellectual property, then created Baidu, a Chinese Google replacement search engine. It appears to be based, to an extent, on Google intellectual property. And also automaker BYD. Why does that matter so much? I'll explain in a bit, okay? What it means when a company is designated as tied to the Chinese military. This actually will have very big implications. It notes this, though. It says the long-awaited update supersedes a list from early 2025 and comes less than a month after President Donald Trump met China's Xi Jinping on a visit to Beijing, where the two leaders maintained a delicate trade war truce. Now, briefly on this, the military designation, saying these companies are tied to the Chinese military, this is part of a very big list. A lot of Chinese companies are now designated as having ties to the PLA, People's Liberation Army. On the previous list was a major addition, Tencent. Tencent is a big deal. Tencent is one of the CCP's biggest entertainment companies. They've been buying up a lot of video game companies. That's also designated as being tied to the Chinese military. Why does that matter? Let me explain. Okay, so we're looking at Baidu, Alibaba, Tencent, BYD, and a long list of other companies. I'm not even going to bother listing because there's a lot of them. You're talking, I believe, over 100 now. You have some tied to AI, some tied to the key components at the back end of the surface level economies. Let me explain, first of all, what this actually means, and then I'll get into company level, what the implications could be. If your company is designated as having ties to the Chinese military, which, again, every year the Pentagon updates this, the main impact it's going to have, it's not immediate, but this is going to be very soon, because first they announce this, and then it begins affecting policy. The first step is the announcement. Next step is application. What the immediate effect of this is going to be is that military contractors are going to be restricted. What that means is that these companies, these Chinese companies now, cannot be tied into companies that get Pentagon contracts. This also tends to affect foreign companies as well. The defense industry is a very big industry, and it's not just limited to surface products, it's limited also based on supply chain risks. If your company's here, and they do business with this guy, and this company does business with these guys, and one of them is a Chinese company designated as being tied to the PLA, People's Liberation Army, this company needs to cut ties with this company unless this company cuts ties with this company. When it comes to foreign companies, and a lot of this, again, relates to backend technology, kind of internal technology, supply chain risks, again, a long list of things, it means that this whole chain of companies is going to be incentivized on a very big scale to sever ties with all these Chinese companies, AI, automakers, tech, those types of things. Meaning, it's going to be very hard for these companies to get government contracts, at least with the Pentagon. Further from that, this also has the tendency to affect, so that will be the immediate effect, right? Technically, the immediate real-world application is going to be that. Any company with a military contract, American or even foreign, is going to have to sever ties with these Chinese companies, and there's, again, a lot of them, right? There's a lot of them. From there, it begins to affect policy. And so, what's going to happen then is, Congress might launch investigations, there's going to be other forms of investigations, and this is going to be kind of ammunition on the trade front. And so, what Trump can do, and we've seen this, is that if there's an issue with, let's say, a trade deal goes bad, or he gets mad at Xi Jinping, which happens, right? Or he disagrees with the CCP policy, he sanctions them. And Congress works on some of this, too, in terms of different actions, right? But Trump can sanction them. And often, what they'll do is, they'll sanction industries related to certain types of threats, especially like People's Liberation Army and stuff like that. And they can even affect Chinese businesses that are tied to these companies, you see? And so, if there's a trade disagreement, if there's a military conflict, like over the Strait of Hormuz, for example, or China supplying weapons to Iran, which they're doing right now, if there's drones, for example, if they have problems with that, they can sanction these companies. And that's a big deal, because the Chinese stock market is not looking so hot right now. They just had the whole thing turned red, you know what I mean? Just about the entire Chinese stock market went bright red. And I don't mean the communist. It may be communist economic policy sense, but I mean bright red, as in everything was down. Xi Jinping, the CCP, they've actually made it so that Chinese investors can't even do foreign investment right now. It's all restricted, at least in the US. It's falling apart right now, economically. And so, part of this trade war or trade debate, whatever you want to call it, puts a gun to the head of all the major Chinese tech companies. On that front, what does it mean for these surface-level companies, right? For these surface-level companies, Tencent, Baidu, Alibaba, you know, a lot of others, this could also affect foreign business. So, for example, Canada got mad at America, saying, how dare you say you're not going to buy, you're going to tariff our cars and tariff our industries. And Trump's saying, who are you? I don't even know your name, basically. Aren't you the governor of our, you know, soon-to-be state? You know, he's being kind of mean to him, right? Trump's saying stuff like that to them. Canada says, well, fine, we don't need, I didn't want to be friends with you anyway. They go to China, they make a deal with the CCP. So, Canada, while trying to sell cars, instead says it's going to buy cars, which is a weird policy. Remember what I said before. One of the reasons why it's going to be hard for Canada, Mexico, Europe to deal with Trump's tariffs is these companies are looking to sell. You need buyers. If you have a bunch of people looking to sell a product, they're looking for buyers and they're all looking for buyers, they're not going to be able to create trade deals between each other to fix the buyer problem when they want to be sellers. What does that mean? It means this. If you have 20 used car salesmen and they're like, come on down, get a used car, right? And, you know, suddenly you say, well, I'm not going to buy your cars. It's not going to be like all the used car salesmen can stay afloat by selling cars to each other. They're looking for buyers, not sellers. They're all sellers. It's very easy to find a seller. It's very difficult to find a buyer. And what America has done effectively through tariffs and through the, you know, kind of trying to bring back American manufacturing, it says, look, we're going to be less buyers. We're looking for domestic. So Canada, anyways, back to Canada, they go to China and they're going to be importing a bunch of Chinese cars, right? America's now saying those cars are going to be banned from American streets. Meaning if you have Canadians buying these cars, you're going to have to keep that car up north. You're not going to be able to bring it across border. So this is becoming a big issue, you know, with Canada, actually. Now that BYD is designated as being tied to the Chinese military, that could also create an additional designation that Chinese cars represent a national security threat. And that's one of the concerns being raised right now, for example, that these cars have sensors on them. You know, they detect things, they scoop in data. And if these cars are now tied to the PLA, the Chinese military, and when I say it's the CCP's military, it's because of the designation with the PLA. They're not like in America. In America, our military is sworn to protect the constitution. In China, the PLA is sworn to protect the Chinese Communist Party. It's more like if like the Democrat Party or the Republican Party had their own personal military, that's what the PLA is to the CCP. They're a party military, right? So them having ties to the CCP, again, designated as this now, means that you could more effectively argue on the policy level that these cars represent a national security threat. That's why it matters so much. Tencent is one of the big ones. If any representatives or AGs watching this want to get a good thing to go on, Tencent is probably one of the biggest national security threats to the United States right now, and I'm saying this, in my opinion, because they've been buying up the video game technologies. They've been buying up some of the biggest video games on the market. You're talking millions, like tens of millions of people, including on people's cell phones, installing these things, tied to the CCP, or again, now designated as a military-tied company. Why does that matter? It's because of anti-cheat software. I mentioned before that Tencent runs an anti-cheat software called ACE. It's Anti-Cheat Expert. This gives a level of access to your device that even you as the surface-level user cannot access, because the way that anti-cheat software works, where if you're cheating in a video game, it kicks you off or something like that. The way this works is it has to monitor at the code level, whether you're running cheats. And so if you have an anti-cheat software, it's monitoring your device and everything that goes on with it. There's nothing that goes on on your device for the most part that an anti-cheat software is not going to see. And if you have a Chinese military-tied company running that software and their terms of service notes that data is or can be sent to China, that is a national security threat. Think of how many armed service members, how many troops are... You know, you're talking about young guys in a lot of cases, you know, 20-year-old, 18-year-old guys. Think of how many of them are playing video games on their smartphones. Think of how many of them have those smartphones on the battlefield. Think of how many of them have that. And think of the possible national security risks if every phone having Chinese military-tied technology monitoring effectively everything on the back and think of what that means for the country. It's a big deal. That's not even being dealt with right now in the United States. It's barely even being discussed, frankly. I assume it's because it's a little too much like inside baseball on the tech side. In my opinion, that currently is one of the biggest national security threats the United States faces, like on a spying level. Again, not making accusations against Tencent because this is just my opinion, but I'm saying if a Chinese military-tied company has access to that level of data, there is a problem. In the chat, reality is real. You're saying economic reality is catching up to the negative aspects of communism. Yeah, it's true. You know, the real irony of communism, it works only when it can feed on capitalism. Let me explain, okay? When does communism work? When it has a host to feed on. Communism does tend to work during the very first stages. Why is that? It's because the statement is, seize the means of production. What does that mean? Imagine you have a country with a bunch of business people or wealthy peasants or a race of people who you just plain don't like, like the Nazis did to the Jews or like, you know, Lenin did to the Kulaks, the wealthy peasants, or like Pol Pot did to the, you know, the educated class or like the CCP did to the landlords, right? You have a class of people designated or like they're trying to do in the United States. They say white people, institutional racism, right? They're using race here to try to push this. Or good old Mamdami in New York is saying they want to, you know, go after white people, right? They were actually saying this on a policy level. The way it works is you claim that wealth in the country is monopolized under a race or a certain class of people. And you define it like that, that there's an inherent kind of monopoly, right? You know, you're poor because the wealthy peasants are taking everything and you can't compete. Or in China, the reason you're all poor is because the landlords own the land and you're denied that access. Or in Mexico, after the Mexican government overthrew, you know, the Spaniards, they instituted actually communist policies. They did a land grab and they redistributed the land. They were saying the same thing as the CCP was. They were saying, you know, the problem is the wealthy landlords have a monopoly on the farmland. We're gonna take it and redistribute it. It didn't work in Mexico, which is why you had mass migration. They basically say that. So the first thing they do is they seize it. They roll in, the communist guards roll up. I'm here for the people, comrade. Surrender your wealth. And they kill them and they beat them and they seize their wealth. The Nazis did it to the Jews. The Russians did it to the kulaks. Pol Pot did it to the educated class. The CCP did it to the landlords. Mexico did it to the Spanish, the Spaniard, you know, landlords they had, which was based on the older Spanish system. In America, they're trying to do it to white people under that same narrative. Seize the means of production. They take the wealth. They seize it. They tax the hell out of it sometimes. They have different ways of doing it, depending on how they do it. And then they redistribute it while taking a lot of cream off the top. Typically, you know, the party shares, but the party's interests come first, comrade, don't you know? And so what they do is they take the wealth. They seize it. Again, the definition of state capitalism, which is what socialism is by definition. State capitalism means that the state has seized the means of production. The factories, the businesses, the property, the resources are owned by the state. In other words, the state controls the systems of capitalism. That's what socialism is. State capitalism. Or as Vladimir Lenin put it, the state capitalist monopoly. That is what socialism is, which is by the way, what communism in political practices, because communism is more of like a religion and it exists through the negation of systems. So communism when practiced by government is socialism. They do that, right? Seize the means of production, which means what? When they first seize the means of production, well, there's a lot of money flowing into the party. It's very wealthy and they redistribute it. And they're like, look at how wealthy we are, comrades and stuff like that. And then what do they find? They find that when you kill the golden goose, the golden goose ain't laying no more eggs. You have a magical goose and it lays a golden egg every day. And then the communists come in and says, hey, if it gives us an egg every day, there must be a whole bunch of eggs in there. Why don't I just kill it and take all the eggs for myself? And then you find when you kill the goose, it stops laying those golden eggs because it's dead, okay? Same thing with the way that communism works when it seizes the means of production. You destroy the thing that was generating wealth, right? Hardworking people is what generates wealth. Surprise, hardworking people is what generates wealth. And when you disincentivize people to be hardworking because you've removed the incentive of being hardworking, and you could say that's based on greed, you could say it's based on selfishness, there is an economic element to that because yeah, obviously people wanna make their lives better and that's why you work hard. That's why you work hard. As soon as you take away that incentive, people say, well, geez, why am I gonna work hard if I can go on welfare and make just as much money and I can have fun all day? Why are you gonna do that? Remember during COVID, that was a big deal because you could make in many places more money just not working than you did working. Once you remove the incentive of difficulty, people will choose to not do the difficult thing. And so what happens is the golden goose is dead, the landlord that used to generate wealth, the hardworking peasant who used to generate wealth, the store owner, the factory owner, the innovator, you've taken away the reason they work hard. And so people stop doing it. People just stop doing it. Not to mention the fact that if you're threatening them and demonizing them for doing it, who wants to face that? Like when I'm gonna work hard, I'm gonna pay for everybody's paychecks and then you're gonna make me the bad guy? Like why are you gonna do it? So they stop doing it. And what happens is this, that initial phase where they rob everybody and give some people a cut, which is the first stage of communist application, comes to an end very rapidly and they decline very quickly into poverty. Every communist country has experienced this, Soviet Union, China, post-revolution, they were beyond third world country, between somewhere 100,000 or sorry, 70 to 100 million killed just under Mao Zedong. Some put it even higher because we don't even know the full numbers. Famine, mass movements, murder, democide, it was horrible. Every communist country experiences this almost immediately after the initial redistribution because they destroyed the things that created all the food and everything else and the country just goes straight down unless they can find a new host to feed on. Communism is parasitic because it only works so long as they can seize from others and then redistribute. If you don't have a host through which to seize wealth from, it doesn't work. If your entire economy is based around sharing with each other, meaning putting a gun to someone's head, oftentimes killing them, taking what they have and giving it to everybody else and usually more so yourself, soon you're gonna run out of people who have money to rob, money to steal from. And so very quickly it declines into that. The exception, the way that it stays afloat is if it finds a new host to feed on. And so when communism is allowed to do business with capitalist countries, and what do they do? They still resort to theft like the CCP committing fraud, currency manipulation, trade manipulation, intellectual property theft where they have military government hackers stealing intellectual property then using that to push up their companies, using state subsidies to put competitors out of business, then raising the prices, maintaining monopolies, then using just hook and crook mafia tactics to kill, undermine and destroy their competitors. Yeah, they're gonna dominate for a little bit, but they're technically engaging in the capitalist system, ironically, while at the same time using uncapitalist or anti-capitalist policies through the enactment of state interventionism. That will only work so long as they have a host to feed on. You cut off the host, you don't let them trade with the capitalist countries or don't let them undermine the capitalist countries, very quick, it's gonna fail. The way the CCP bailed itself out was under Deng Xiaoping and that was reform and opening up. When they opened up foreign trade, it bailed out the Chinese economy, all right? The new China, the big lights with the big bright lights that people like was not created by the CCP. It was created by Western manufacturing and Western investment, right? It's because they engage with the West under Deng Xiaoping, reform and opening up. None of that was created domestically, it was imported. Same thing with like Cuba right now. You have a lot of the socialists being like, Cuba'd be a great booming economy if only they could engage in capitalism, if only they could trade. Meaning communism only works so long as it can be capitalist or so long as it can steal. That's basically it, right? So yeah, I think the CCP, if they go down this route, they may get to experience real communism. It's mythical. People say that wasn't real communism. They may actually get to experience real communism, which means you're cut off from the capitalist system. We get to see how that works. That being said, some big stuff coming up. If you're in the Tampa, Florida area, I'm gonna be there Saturday, June 20th in Epoch Times Insider Forum. We're gonna have a great event there if you wanna come on down. This is gonna be a conversation, not just myself speaking there. It's gonna be our senior health editor also, Matt Little. He's also gonna be speaking. It's gonna be a pretty good event. We did one recently as well in Florida. I didn't wanna announce it too big because it was like the first one we did down there. This one we're making bigger. So if you wanna come down, say hi. If you wanna join us, speeches, in-person Q&A, come down to Tampa, Florida. For more details on how to attend, the link is in the live chat and the description. And I look forward to meeting you all if you're gonna be there. Again, Tampa, Florida, coming up soon. That said, everyone, thank you so much for being here. And as always, please take care of yourselves, stay informed, stay free. Thank you.