Will Cain Country - Senator Tom Cotton: The Very Real Threat Of China and Elbridge Colby, PLUS Canada Boos The U.S. National Anthem 

Episode Date: February 17, 2025

Story #1: In a stunning speech that falls just short of 'tear down this wall,' Vice President J.D. Vance tells Europe that the threat is not from Russia but from within. In response, CBS and Germany show a stunning lack of historical knowledge over Free Speech. Story #2: Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR) joins to discuss his new book 'Seven Things You Can't Say About China.' Plus, he addresses the allegations head on that he was undermining the nomination of Elbridge Colby as Under Secretary of Defense for Policy nominee. Story #3: Canada boos the American National Anthem. America takes it to Canada with their fists and on the scoreboard. Is national pride back? Tell Will what you thought about this podcast by emailing [e-mail] Subscribe to The Will Cain Show on YouTube here: Watch The Will Cain Show! Follow Will on Twitter: @WillCain Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

One, in a stunning speech last week that falls just short of Mr. Gorbachev tear down this wall. Vice President J.D. Vance tells Europe that the threat to Western civilization does not come from Russia, but rather comes from within. It's democracies attempting to protect their democracy by censoring the free speech of the war. their people in response, stunning historical literacy, absolute condescension, and a betrayal of American values by CBS News. Two, Senator Tom Cotton on the seven things you cannot say about China. Three, USA, USA. America takes it to Canada.

It is the Will Kane Show streaming live at Fox News.com on the Fox News YouTube channel and the Fox News Facebook page every Monday through Thursday at 12 o'clock Eastern time. Hit subscribe on YouTube, jump into the comments section, become a member of the Wallitia. You're listening on radio and some three dozen markets across this great United States of America. head over to Apple or Spotify, hit subscribe and always hang out with us here on the Wilcane show. It was a fun weekend. It's a nice weekend. I haven't had many weekends, really honestly, in the last half decade. But I spent this weekend at home.

And shockingly, after the end of football, watched a lot of sports. I don't know if you guys in the Willisville. watched much sports but i had high school soccer for much of the weekend and when i wasn't watching high school soccer with no real plans and no real agenda going into my weekend i ended up watching i watched USA versus Canada in the four nations cup i watched the texas longhorns against the kentucky wildcats in college basketball and And last night, for all of about five minutes, I watched the NBA All-Star game. It was far and away, the least interesting thing of my weekend.

But that's because you guys started texting me on Saturday night. And again, it wasn't on my agenda. I didn't know. I knew about the Four Nations Cup. And on the Canaan Sports edition of our show, on Friday, we interviewed the president and CEO of the Dallas Stars. But I was aware of the Four Nations Cup, but I hadn't really made plans to watch. But the minute that this happened, the minute that Canada booed the U.S. National Anthem, it became must-see TV, and I was flagged on the Will Kane show text thread.

So I was late, and I didn't hear this played inside the stadium. see by the dawn's early light What so proudly we hailed At the twilight's last We lived All right Colony Gets my blood going

In Montreal Canadians boo the U.S. National Anthem Well that will get a red-blooded American upset that will get you going i've been reading on x ever since i started that night but like people say we're not booing you america we're not booing your hockey players we're booing trump in the 51st state i'll say what we'll get into that a little bit later here in the show but the minute that puck dropped that game was different three fights in nine seconds This is amazing.

And hits like this all throughout the game. What a nice sound. Let me just play it again. Let me just play it again. I mean, who is that? I don't know what U.S. player that is. I think it's Kachuk. He is.

It's Brady Kach. Yeah. Just hammering a Canadian player into the boards. And the game was full of those. Sidney, not Sydney. Connor McDavid, yes. This one. It took me a while.

Best player. Sidney Crosby, no. Conmer McGough. It had to get through, you know, a couple different iterations. I got to Connor McDavid. I got, yeah, just destroyed him. Destroyed McDavid. Boom, there's McDavid.

You probably don't remember him because he didn't win the Stanley Cup last year. Because it went to an American team. I mean, that is a weak cloaking in yourself of the flag just to back yourself in to talk about the Florida Panthers, which no one wants to hear. What? But. American pride.

Let's talk politics. I don't know. It was awesome. It was awesome. So fun. Is this real quick, because I'm not, I mean, I'm a hockey fan, but I'm a casual for sure. Is this instead of an All-Star game, this Four Nations Cup?

Is that what they're? doing two days no um they do this I don't know how often so it's just by chance it falls on the same weekend as the NBA All-Star game yeah I think it's just

it's just like a tournament they do just to you know have more hockey I guess I'm not sure exactly well it's awesome I mean and it's not over but for for like

getting used to sport not caring about like okay no one cares about the NBA all-star game at all and no one cares about the NFL Pro Bowl a little bit more but only a little bit more for major league baseball all-star game this is awesome this four nations cup and the 51st state really being upset with us you know only added wonderful geopolitical tension to the game we're going to get into it a little bit later than the game but by the way I was super pleased by the way that i mean sports was fun this weekend i had no sports on my plans you know this is it's over now it's when you catch up on television series that kind of thing and i i don't know

i've spent a lot of my weekend watching sports did you guys yeah mainly hockey and thank goodness james told me the all-star game was on because i had no idea yeah i love the dunk contests they do have a marketing yeah but it was on at the same time as the hockey game and i was watching tucky Kentucky versus Kentucky versus Texas, too. So I didn't even turn it over to the dunk contest. Yeah. Not at all. All right.

Well, we're going to get into this because the geopolitical stuff behind Canada versus USA is fascinating. We're going to play a few those fights, three fights in the first nine seconds. We got Senator Tom Cotton coming up on the show today. Talk about his new book, Seven Things You Can't Say about China. But first, I want to get into what I think was a stunning speech by Vice President J.D. Vance. and the incredible fallout from what he had to say about losing Western civilization with story number one. J.D. Vance at the Munich Security Conference last week gave a speech where he told much of Europe that what you have to fear is not Russia and perhaps even to a lesser extent is not China. What you have to fear is losing Western civilization because you have begun the betrayal of the fundamental values of Western civilization.

He spoke specifically about tech companies pushed forward by the governments of Europe, censoring free speech on the Internet. He had this great line where he said, if your democracy needs to be saved by suppressing speech on the Internet, your democracy isn't that strong to begin with. And in response to that, what was it, the German premier? Like, one of them cried at the conference. They were all super offended by J.D. Vance. incredibly offended in Europe by these implications, and they found a sympathetic compatriot in the American media. So, first, 60 Minutes did a piece on Sunday night where they talked about free speech

in Germany, and I found this interview absolutely incredible. Watch this. Is it a crime to insult somebody in public? Yes, yes, it is. And it's a crime to insult them online as well? Yes. The fine could be even higher if you insult someone in the internet. Why?

Because in internet, it stays there. If we are talking here face to face, you insult me, and insult you, okay, finish. But if you're in the internet, if I insult you or a politician... That sticks around forever. Yeah. If somebody posts something that's not true, and then somebody else reposts it or likes it, are they committing a crime? In the case of reposting, it is a crime as well,

because the reader can't distinguish whether you just invented this or just reposted it. That's the same for us. How do people react when you take their phones from them? They are shocked. This is incredible. And they all chuckle. They are shocked. And there's certainty.

Listen to the words using, if you insult somebody, is it a crime? I mean, first of all, what does it mean, what does it mean to be insulting? insulted. Like what is that? I'm sure they have a Politburo of legislators who are probably going to lay out what is a viable insult versus what is not. They have to because, listen, is it Ricky Jervais that has it? Like, if you say you're offended, all you've done is tell me something about yourself. You haven't told me anything about what I said. Nothing. The fragilest human being in the world becomes the most powerful by cloaking. himself in victimhood of being insulted.

I mean, I don't know how many people I insult every day, intentionally or unintentionally, right here. Somebody listening who disagrees with me, one of the guys on the show who I make fun of. Like, what a world where it becomes a crime to insult somebody. And then, because this is the real life equivalent of the Internet, let's say just as a hypothetical two days dan insults james right i hear it and i say to tinfoil pat did you hear what dan said about james i am criminally culpable as well for repeating the

insult that's what a repost is on the internet this is insanity layered on top of insanity this is so far now i fully understand that european nations have never embraced the idea of free speech the way that we have in America, and that includes all of them. This is uniquely American enshrinement in our rights, but also a uniquely American sentiment in our culture to embrace the idea of free speech. It's one not shared virtually anywhere else, including north of our border in Canada. By the way, I'm insulted. You booed our national anthem. I'm insulted. I don't think Canada's gone as far as Germany, but I'm pretty sure that gives me the power to have someone arrested in Canada for insulting me by booing the national anthem.

I'm not really insulted, by the way. I mean, I'm kind of insulted, but the kind of insult, you know, water on a duck's back certainly doesn't soak the skin. What does society you create because of this power? There's no such thing as water's on a duck back. I mean, just revel, soak. Soak in your victimhood. Soak in your insult. It's, and it would be one thing if it were just in Europe or in

Canada. But this is how. your media in America is responding. Secretary of State Marco Rubio went on Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan. And here is the line of questioning. Well, he was standing in a country where free speech was weaponized to conduct a genocide. And he met with the head of a political party that has far right views and some historic ties to extreme groups. The context of that was changing the tone of it and you know that that the censorship was specifically about the right you know first of all can i just talk about something stylistically and in and you know our relationship you and me the listener me i i one of the things i always talk to myself about is like

hey will be careful because sometimes you can come off as patronizing and i don't mean to i think it's the way that i speak and i don't know but it's something i work on like i'm I'm like, hey, I don't know, just stop. Don't sound like you're sermonizing. Don't sound like you're patronizing. Somebody needs to pull Margaret Brennan aside and tell her, and maybe she can't because it's just such a big part of her personality. You are so condescending.

You are so incredibly condescending. That line, and you know that, she says that to Mark Arubia, and you know that. It's just so, and she's done it several times. I can't remember the other interviews because we've played her recently like, It feels like half a dozen times in the last three weeks, this tool that she uses, and you know that, you know that. It's such unearned condescension as well. Nothing about her has ever read to me incredibly bright or insightful. Nothing. I'm not saying incredibly dumb and obvious either. I'm just saying there's nothing that I've ever seen. It's like, wow, other than your news desk and your microphone and your position that someone else has given you, that used to be a monopolized position, still somewhat of a scarcity-driven position,

has earned you the right of condescension. It's so unearned. And then, layer on top of it, it's so stupid. So you're being condescending while being so stupid. I don't know about, I think it's the AFP party in Germany. Like, I'll have to, I wouldn't grant her goodwill because of the behavior, but the historical ties to what did she say far right or anti-Semitic i haven't seen the evidence of that and i would require it certainly not going to take her word for it if vance was talking to a quote-unquote

far-right party i don't want to know what that party stands for i believe they're opposed to illegal immigration and probably legal immigration to some extent refugee statuses in germany i don't know what else including anti-semitism that she's referring to that she provides as evidence for and you know that. I'm sorry to bury the lead. The most egregious part of that is clearly free speech was weaponized to conduct a genocide in Europe. That is absurd. Obsurd. Nazi Germany weaponized free speech to conduct the Holocaust. To his credit, by the way, Secretary of State Marco Rubio totally pushed back on that. He's like, I totally disagree. First of all, once a Nazi party. arrived there's no there's no free speech and so what was free speech under the wymar republic

during the nazi germany the nazi party's attempt to persuade the german public over i mean i don't know but free speech being weaponized you're saying is what led to the holocaust and rubio perfectly says no a genocidal party that hated jews and other minorities is what led to the holocaust you're historically illiterate to look back on this and say this is the price of free speech genocide and Holocaust. What more, how much more buried antagonism could you have to a fundamental value of American culture and American rights? This is what sets us apart. And you marshal condescension and historical literacy to undercut the thing that sets us apart. And you do it from a news desk whose job is to speak, who relies on the concert free speech. If you think your grandfathered in

and you can squash all the little stupid in your mind, minions on X to stop talking. You're so horribly mistaken. They'll come for you. The censors will come for you, Margaret Brennan. Maybe they'll come for Big Balls 1, 2, 3 first on X, but they will come for you. The difference is you will willingly comply

to keep your monopolistic desk and your unearned condescension. it deserves no place in the American media if you run a company and your anchor believes what was just espoused there not just the historical literacy but the free speech is a problem that can lead to holocausts you don't deserve it you should be in the same position as big balls one two three that's where you should reside your voice is as valuable and your platform as big as a random account on x and just for good measure before we think it's It's just the media or just the left. I just want you to know how powerful censorship is. So a fascinating moment this week. Congressman Mike Gallagher, Republican, talking with Senator Mark Warner, Democrat, and they're talking about how the TikTok bill got passed.

All right, we all know about the TikTok bill, banning TikTok, right? National security risk, collecting information on people, privacy. Listen to what Gallagher says about how. they arrived at bipartisan consensus to ban tic-tok we were able to sort of learn from that experience we refined the approach we worked with him we worked with the executive branch so we had a bipartisan consensus we had the executive branch but the bill was still dead until october 7th and people started to see a bunch of anti-semitic content on the platform and our bill had legs again all right so what drove the bipartisan consensus to pass the ticot bill not the private

see stuff. That was already, the bill was dead, he says. Everybody's aware of that. It was anti-Semitism on TikTok. Now, I don't know that I have to say this. I shouldn't have to, but I will. It's no embrace of anti-Semitism or even the Palestinian cause to say, hold on a minute. So a certain kind of content, even if driven algorithmically by nefarious forces in China, a certain kind of content is what drove you to eventually banning a platform. That is an assault on speech just to be clear that's what brought everybody together so you hear what you hear in Germany

okay you hear what you hear in Europe your fight is here against the likes of Margaret Brennan mainstream media but even those in government that will ban stuff it's just the speech they don't like

they're willing to ban and by the way this is a fight for generations and for eternity free speech it'll never stop being under assault because someone to take this song conversation full circle is always insulted. Someone is always offended. Seven things you cannot say about China with Senator Tom Cotton when we come back on the Will Cain Show. Fox News Audio presents unsolved with James Patterson.

Every crime tells a story. But some stories are left unfinished. Somebody knows. Real cases, real people. and follow now at foxtruecrime.com. Seven things you cannot say about China with Senator Tom Cotton. It's the Will Kane Show streaming live at Fox News.com on the Fox News YouTube channel and the Fox News Facebook page. Hit subscribe at Apple, Spotify, or on YouTube.

If you're listening on radio or streaming us for the first time today there on YouTube or Facebook, We hope you'd subscribe and hang out with this on a day-to-day basis. Senator Tom Cotton is a Republican from Arkansas. He is the author of a brand new book. The book is entitled Seven Things You Cannot Say About China, and he joins us now on the Will Cancho. Hey, Senator. Hey, Will, great to be on with you.

Great to have you here. Before we jump into stuff, you know, the guys were telling me back on the show, you were listening to what I had to say there about free speech and what we're hearing from the vice president and what's happening in Europe, what's happening in American media. You even heard me probably talking about the TikTok bill, and you may have some disagreement with me on the TikTok bill, which, by the way, I didn't take a position on one that we should or shouldn't, but the appropriate motivations that should be guiding us on that should or shouldn't. And I just want to see if you had any reaction.

Sure. Well, I think what the vice president said in Germany at that Munich Security conference is right about Europe and its approach to free speech. Germany in particular, I was at that same conference nine years ago when you had the initial wave of migrants coming in from Libya and, Syria and really throughout Northern Africa and the Middle East. And I heard German officials saying that, you know, we can't have people out there criticizing these migrants, even though they were sexually assaulting women in the park because this would be somehow an offense to their culture. And that was really the first time I realized that Germany doesn't have anything like free speech as we understand it here in America and many other European nations don't. The same thing is true of Germany and many other nations' efforts to try to basically.

basically curtail, if not entirely outlaw, center-right populist parties. You've got German and other European politicians who are afraid of their voters, as opposed to listening those voters' concerns. You know, 2016 was the year Donald Trump was elected the first time. And I often observed that Donald Trump was more a symptom than a cause of what we saw not only here in America, but across the world. You know, that was the same year that you had Brexit when the British people revolted against their leaders and said, no, no, we want to chart our own destiny. We don't want our future to be in the hands of a bunch of Eurocrats on the continent. And that continues to this day, especially in Europe. The more and more you try to marginalize a larger and larger growing

sentiment inside of your nation, it's probably going to make it grow even larger, as opposed to simply recognizing that voters have legitimate concerns about uncontrolled mass migration or crime or what have you. Yeah. One more follow up on this. So Vance didn't just focus on free speech. He talked about unfettered mass migration to your point and it undercutting those who buy in and to Western civilization and the fundamental values of Western civilization. And I think we're seeing that fracture point at a pretty advanced stage in a lot of Europe, UK included, as you point out, Germany, where, you know, those cultures are fundamental. changing, you know, like an earthquake underneath their feet. Those same things could be applied to the United States to a lesser degree. I mean, we have an uncontrolled illegal immigration. We've also taken in a ton of refugees throughout the last probably, what, 30 years from

different parts of the world who culturally probably don't buy in to what, there's a difference between a refugee and an illegal immigrant and somebody choosing to come to our country and with that an assumption of buy-in to our culture, right? But I'm curious what you think about how far behind on that clock we are from where Europe is. You know, we have some advantages, two oceans and so forth, but we still have experienced this cultural disruption. And I just wonder if we're not headed down the same path as Europe. And if we are, how far behind we might be. Well, fortunately, we aren't that far down the path, certainly not as far as some of these

European nations are. You know, we haven't had as much uncontrolled migration over the last 30 years as European nations have, although we had a heck of a lot during Joe Biden's period. But also you see that our politics can help accommodate and adjust for new opinions. In Europe, someone like Donald Trump probably would have been ostracized to the point of being excluded from government. You would have had traditional Republicans and Democrats trying to form a government against them, which is exactly what's happened in Germany for years and years and years. You have a coalition of basically every political party except center-right populist because everyone wants to keep them out of any position of power. And again, it's a kind of sometimes explicit censorship, some kind of soft

censorship of a view that's held by a pretty large percentage of the German people. You don't have to agree with it. But if, you know, one-seventh or one-six, one-fifth of your fellow citizens, think a certain way and express a certain opinion by voting of it. It's just like Donald Trump here in America. Almost half of all Americans who voted last year voted for President Trump. He won the popular vote. He won an electoral vote landslide that we don't try to avoid. the consequences of that election. Now, Democrats tried to do a little bit the first time around in 2017, but right now you can see most Americans want President Trump and a Republican Congress to move forward on the agenda. In Europe, there would have been a much, because of the nature of

their parliamentary system, a much stronger effort to exclude not just President Trump, but his voters from any position of power and influence in a government, and that's not healthy for democracy. All right, let's talk about your book. Seven things you can't say about China. I want to go into, if not all seven of the premises you lay out, a couple that I'm really curious about. I don't think it's an overwhelming number. I just only have so much time with you. But I think it's actually, I love the way you structure it and organize it into seven things. Oh, seven's an interesting number.

I'm a big fan of three. But for a book, you need more than three. You got to have a number that's a hook. Ten would have been too generic, right? So seven was good. Huh, he's got seven. Okay, I got to check that out. But why did you decide?

to write this book? I've seen for my time in the Senate now, you know, 10 years in the Armed Services Committee, 10 years on the Intelligence Committee, now the chair of the Intelligence Committee, that China poses a mortal threat to the American way of life, and our future, and our kids' future. And thankfully, most Americans agree with that. Not all elites agree with it, but most Americans agree with it. But no matter what's your opinion about China and the danger or threat that it poses to America, most people probably don't appreciate just how bad it is.

and that is in part because so many of our elites have reasons not to ring the alarm bell. You know, they are influenced by China, maybe even compromised by China in some cases. And I make that case in the book as well, Will, you know, but the first three things you can't say about China is that it is an evil empire, and you have to understand that just like Ronald Reagan said about Soviet Russia, it's an evil empire, and that affects the way it acts in the world. And then second and third, it's preparing for war, and it's waging an economic world war, especially against the United States.

And waging that economic world war has made it rich and powerful far beyond its boundaries. And that's created these things that you can't say, in part because China's power and wealth has allowed it to infiltrate American society, infiltrate American government, which are the next two things you can't say. So if you say, for instance, as I did in 2020, hey, you know, this coronavirus probably came from a lab. They were researching coronavirus just down the road. And there's no bats around Wuhan. And the lady in charge of the lab, which is known for having. safety problems is literally named the bat lady you don't just have chinese communist criticizing me

which of course i expected you have democratic politicians you have major media outlets you have all kinds of people here in america who are deeply invested in china and its growth and its power who have essentially become a kind of thought police or enforcer against any critics of the chinese communist party okay so that's one of the points i think you since you you started us off on several of them there i want to pick one and then and then follow you say in the book as point number four uh china has infiltrated our society now my question is how but first let's talk about who we've talked a lot about chinese influence culturally in terms of hollywood we know by the way you can't make china the bad guy in a movie or get no chinese distribution right and you need chinese distribution for money

so that takes me to the more interesting side the corporate infiltration help me understand the depth of it because we know our two economies are intertwined. I know every big American corporation from Disney to Wall Street wants to be making money in China. And that has to color how they approach geopolitics with China. There's just too much money invested in the future of China. Yeah. Well, there's no question about that. You mentioned Hollywood.

That's one of my examples is that, yeah, you can't remember the last time there was a bad guy from China in a movie because Hollywood movie studios are so dependent. on the large, lucrative Chinese movie market. Probably the last time was Brad Pitt in seven days or seven years in China in 1997, which favorably depicted the Dalai Lama and Tibet's plight. And China cracked down hard. And studio execs for a long time have said no way to anything related to China. In fact, there was a remake of a movie, what was it, Red Dawn, I think,

a remake from the 1980s movie when Russia invaded the United States. And the movie was going to be about China invading. the United States and the studio executives got a hold of said no no we can't have that so they cg i'd it to make it north korea instead uh impoverished 25 nation of 25 million starving people with fishing dinghy somehow got all the way across the pacific ocean and invaded america but that's what that's what studio execs in hollywood will do we'll take that the next step consider american news media well another example i offer um except for fox every major news network in America is owned by or affiliated with one of those studios. Do you really think that ABC is going

to shoot you straight on China when Disney owns them? Or NBC and MSNBC when they're affiliated with Comcast Universal? What about CNN and Warner Brothers? I mean, the infiltration is deep. Look at corporate America. Corporate America depends in part on the Chinese import market for the products we make. They've outsourced entire industries there. So if you're caterpillar or Coca-Cola or Apple, like you're heavily dependent on China because of the amount of operations you have in China, so much so that you turn around and then start lobbying the U.S. government, not just on what your interest are in China, whether it's making smartphones or sugary beverages or what have you, but everything related to China.

You know, in the first Trump administration, when President Trump was trying to get his initial phase one trade deal done with China, the Chinese premier who is here to negate. negotiate that trade deal, summoned executives from major Wall Street banks to a luxury hotel right across the street from the White House to enlist them as de facto lobbyists, to encourage the president and those around him in the White House not to drive such a hard bargain on behalf of American workers and businesses. So that, again, the influence is pervasive across American society, something that I think a lot of Americans, even though they have a rightly sour opinion about China, don't appreciate just.

how present it is in everyday life. I think the best example of that, or maybe the best illustration of that, is Mark Cuban. Like, Mark Cuban is a guy who I disagree with on a lot of levels, but he has certainly made part of his brand social justice, and you can't make social justice part of your brand while ignoring what happens in China, especially if you're doing business in China, but they've all, the NBA and everybody affiliated totally silent on that issue. And you know why? It's not because they don't care. It's because they're compromised. Yeah. No, in 2019, the general manager of the Houston Rockets simply posted an image saying that we should stand with Hong Kong as it was facing oppression by China. And the NBA came down like a ton of bricks on him.

LeBron James and Stephen Kerr, who otherwise all into social justice warrior stuff, said that, well, you shouldn't say that. You've got to understand that the consequences your actions could have. Anus Cancer Freedom, who was not just a critic of Turkey, his native land, became a critic of China for using slave labor and reeducation camps against religious and ethnic minorities in China. He was cut from the team, and he told me that he believes he's been blacklisted. I think that's probably right as well.

You know, one of the owners of the NBA, Josai, of the New Jersey Nets, was one of the founders of Alibaba, and he's a notorious China apologist. And MBA has major operations in China. I think it's probably their biggest overseas market. And China cracked down hard after that incident with the Houston Rockets. So the NBA, unfortunately, knows where its bread is buttered, and it took steps to suppress any kind of criticism of China during that incident. Just like its partner, ESPN, again, owned by Disney,

refused to have anything on its network about the controversy. So you mentioned economic war. I want you to help us understand, and then I want to hit a few current events with you, too, Senator, but the Belt and Road Initiative. Like, I think we all have heard of the Belt and Road Initiative at this point, but you point out in the book that they're waging an economic war with the United States, and that they're going into all these third world countries, whether or it's Africa or Latin America or South America, and they're creating strategic partnerships. This is part of what we probably see with the Panama Canal. And they've entitled this, the Belt and Road Initiative. What is that? Yeah, it's a massive neo-mercantilist enterprise to try to ring most of the world,

primarily Eurasia, Africa, but also, as you say, Latin America, with roads, railroads, ports, canals, airports, other kinds of infrastructure. And it's not done for those nations' benefits. It's done for China's benefit. They're exporting their excess capacity, you know, the dominance they've established in the world's steel market or cement market or. concrete market to try to prop up their own industries. They're exporting the laborers. They're not hiring local laborers in these nations. They're exporting their own laborers. They're even taking

their businesses along with them. So basic concessions like food or clothing is none of that benefit is going to the local economies. But oftentimes these are poor third world nations that couldn't fund their own port or their own railroad. So they accept China's terms, even though they don't benefit that much and the terms can be very onerous. Sometimes it's for clear strategic reason. And then if you look, for instance, in Sri Lanka, an island right off the coast of India, which is China's old rival in Asia. They built an airport and a port. Sri Lanka couldn't pay for it. It had almost no business whatsoever.

So China took it over under the terms of the agreement. And lo and behold, PLA Navy ships started showing up on Sri Lanka and that port just off the coast of India. You see that time and time again with this Belt and Road initiative. are you concerned like let's take us i'd for a minute right we've all talked about it we don't have to rehash all the waste and ridiculous things in the cuts that doges has pushed through with us a i'd but i believe i have my history correct that usaida was a bit of an anti-communist thing launched by jfk that it's it was kind of our belt and road initiative in a way we would go into these countries we're going to help fund whatever needs to be funded there to

create friendly relationships in a relationship so that communism doesn't spread. Do you see, are you concerned at all about the U.S. rolling back stuff that could have been used as a bulwark against the Belt and Road initiative? No, I'm not. I mean, you know, the exposure of the waste and fraud at USID is really remarkable. And I don't think that transgendered operas or comics or sex change surgeries in Latin America or Sesame Street in Iraq is doing much of the comic. They're building the road and we're building and we're doing a play. If anything, it's probably turning those peoples against America. So I think what's happening is a very needful pause and examination of how all that money is being spent inappropriately in a way that doesn't really advance America's strategic interest.

There are also other agencies that do similar work in terms of overseas infrastructure, oftentimes underwriting through loans or loan facilities, that kind of infrastructure work, like the export import bank or the overseas private investment corporation, the development finance corporation. That's the kind of more kind of core development. But of course, we would never do what China does. We would never throw American taxpayer dollars after a money pit for an airport or a port or a railroad that's never actually going to function on an economically viable basis. There are things we've done throughout our history, like helping build the Panama Canal that are vital. And I'm glad we did those things. We also have to make sure that we protect them from Chinese influence. I can tell you there are a lot of Chinese influence, directed, controlled businesses.

that are operating right around the Panama Canal Zone. And that's a bad thing for America's strategic interests. Okay, I want to hit two current events, if I might with you here, Senator. So you came up in the news today, I'm sure you're aware. Elbridge Colby has been nominated to the DOD. Now, Charlie Kirk, well-known conservative commentator, said, behind the scenes that you were working against Elbridge Kobe's confirmation. To that, I want to share the vice president tweeted,

support for Colby. He said this, he's talking about somebody else's commentary. He says Elbridge has consistently been correct about the big foreign policy debates of the last 20 years. He was critical of the Iraq War, which made him unemployable in the 2000s era conservative movement. He built a relationship with a liberal think tank because it was one of the institutions that would even hire a foreign policy realist. Vance goes on to describe him as a realist and suggests that is why he's being pushed back on an outdated neo-conservative foreign policy point of view. I'm curious, first, is it true? Are you against Colby's appointment to DOD?

Well, Will, what I want to make sure is that the president's nominees in all critical national security positions, whether it's this one elsewhere in the DOD, the Department of State, or the intelligence community, share his priorities, aren't going to advance his priorities. Most notably, a core conviction of the president and mine is making sure that Iran doesn't get a nuclear weapon. So I'm going to explore that with Mr. Colby in meetings and hearings, just as I have with other nominees have come in front of the committee. And I'll continue to do that on that issue and other issues as we move ahead. But do you have some hesitations about him? Well, he's written in the past that he thinks that we could contain a nuclear Iran, that it's plausible and practical to do.

That's not my position. That's not the president's position. And again, we've got meetings and hearings coming up, so I'll explore it with him, just like I do with other nominees for the Department of Defense, Department of State and the intelligence community. Is that the biggest issue for you when it comes your biggest concern? I think that's a very important issue. I mean, from the very first day, I was in the Senate. I've been fighting against a nuclear Iran, which I believe is a grave threat to the United States. They're not just trying to build nuclear weapons. They're trying to build intercontinental missiles that can range the United States, just like North Korea started out with nuclear weapons. and then it built the missiles that can reach not just Hawaii and then Seattle, but Chicago and Washington all the way down to Florida. So I think that's a serious concern of mine about any nominee who's at the Department of Defense, the Department of State, or the intelligence community. Do you agree with the Vice President's characterization of sort of the debate here that Colby represents a realist point of view and those who have a more, I guess we'd call it idealistic under the guise of neo-conservative point of view, is that sort of the issue?

one issue specific for you, Iran? I didn't see what the vice president wrote, so I wouldn't want to characterize it. I think those kind of broad labels oftentimes are unhelpful. And what I try to focus on in my work in the Senate with all of these nominees is looking at specific and concrete policies, especially when there's such core principles that I've had from the beginning that the president has always had. Literally the first conversation we had in 2015 was about my work against President Obama's disastrous nuclear deal with Iran.

So that's where my focus is on specific policies that I want to make sure that we get right to keep America safe. Last thing on this. I'll let you go on this, and then I have one more issue, separate issue. You've said several times, you know, that your priorities align with the presidents. But that would probably also extend to his nominees, right? Like if the – I would assume the president wouldn't nominate somebody that he thinks is antagonistic to his point of view and his priorities. Well, it's rare that anybody would have 100% agreement with the president or anyone else, even our wives and husbands, right? Well, but you've seen nominees for the cabinet who have taken

positions that the president doesn't share. For instance, RFK Jr. had positions that were pretty far out there on the pro-choice side of the spectrum when it comes to life questions. But he said in meetings, and he said at his hearing, that he would uphold and protect life from HHS, and that he would follow the president's guidance on pro-life questions. Likewise, the Secretary of Labor nominee who's going to have her hearing this week. She sponsored legislation in the House of Representatives that would override a lot of state right to work laws, like in my state. But she has since said to me, and I expect you'll say her hearings this week, that that's what she was doing as a representative to speak for her own district in Oregon, that she supports the president's policy

when it comes to respecting right to work laws. So again, it's not surprising that a nominee would not be 100% aligned in their record with President Trump, because no one's ever 100% aligned, right? what we need to hear for some of these nominees is that they accept the president's priorities. They are aligned with his policies, and they will advance those policies. Okay. Thank you for that. Last thing. I'm just curious where you are on the Russia-Ukraine peace negotiations. You know, I haven't had you on the, which I welcome you as always on the Will Kane show on Fox News Channel as well. And I just see this growing divide on the right. You know, does Russia have to be pushed back to its original starting point and punished for?

ever crossing the border into Ukraine. And this is kind of that, I appreciate you rejecting, you know, philosophical labels, but this is kind of an example of what I feel like is realism versus I don't know what the other side of this is. Because it seems like where the Trump administration is right now is a realistic place of negotiation. Well, this is where we are. It's not ideal. This is where we are and we have to start peace negotiations from where we are. And Russia has taken this land. Russia said NATO is a non-starter for Ukraine and so forth. But there are those that see that as massive concessions to Russia. So I'm just curious, do you see us bending to Russia? Do you think we're making too many concessions? Are we being realist? I know. And I think the president is

dealing or playing the very bad hand he was dealt here. Well, first off, you don't have to say this wouldn't have happened on Donald Trump's watch. It didn't happen on Donald Trump's watch. Russia has invaded Ukraine twice, both under Democratic presidents. President Obama in 2014, or President Biden in 2022. It didn't happen. when Donald Trump was president. Unfortunately, it did happen, and now we've all inherited it. This is the way I kind of see the reality of the situation in Ukraine, is that President Biden's weakness tempted Vladimir Putin to do what he's always wanted to do,

go for the jugular in Ukraine. President Biden pussyfooted around for three years and prevented Ukraine from repelling that invasion from the very beginning all the way back to its original borders. And now in retrospect, it's pretty clear that President Biden's strategy in Ukraine was to lose just to lose after the election. But President Trump won instead, and now we've all got to deal with that reality. And it's perfectly fine to sit down and negotiate with the Russians. That's the way you get to a ceasefire and hopefully a lasting one.

Ronald Reagan exchanged over 40 letters with Mikhail Gorbachev, had four summits in three years. Later said that they developed a bond, even a friendship. And this is a communist dictator. But it helped bring an end to the Cold War, and it helped liberate Soviet Russia. So I think we're all dealing with a very, very unfortunate circumstance in Ukraine. And what we need to do is get to a situation where the fighting has ended and we can ensure that there's not going to be a third invasion of Ukraine sometime in the future. All right. Senator, I appreciate the book is fascinating. Seven things you can't say about China.

We touch on about three of them here together. But I would encourage anyone listening to go, as I point out, he's got seven. So you want to get to know them all. By the way, I don't even, you'll probably give me a political answer on this. You know, you're, you're Razorback. You're not a Razorback, right? I know you're going to school there, but of course, I root for the Razorbacks. You have to. Where did you go to school? I went to Harvard, although I try not to admit that anymore, Will, given the lack of development. I tell people, actually, I wasn't in college in Massachusetts. I was, I was in a

work release program for my past crimes. It's less disreputable. I could, I could feel your disappointment at having to answer that question. I went to Harvard. And then honorably served our country and served now at the United States Senate. Senator Cotton, thanks for spending so much time with the States. Great to see you in a quarter zip and a relaxed environment in this conversation. Thanks so much. Thank you. Welcome. All right. Take care. As Senator Tom Carton of Arkansas on his new book, seven things you can't say about China. Okay, we got to get into this. I teased it earlier. So you got to see the fights. I've got to

for you. You've got to see the fights between USA and Canada after they boo our national anthem. And I think it leads to a fascinating conversation about the rise of nationalism, not just in America, but across the globe. That's next on The Will Cain Show. Quiz. Fox. Then come back here to see how you did. Thank you for taking the quiz. This is Jimmy Phala, inviting you to join me for Fox Across America, where we'll discuss every single one of the Democrats' dumb ideas. Just kidding. It's only a three-hour show. Listen live at noon Eastern or get the podcast at Fox Across America.com. USA takes it to Canada. It wouldn't have mattered in any other sport.

But in hockey? It's like, I don't know. Is it like taking their wife? It's the Will Kane show streaming live at foxnews.com on the Fox News YouTube channel and the Fox News Facebook page. Hit subscribe at Apple or on Spotify. Is that the right analogy, fellas? Like, if we had beaten hockey, why are you making that face?

A savage, bro. Well, beating them in hockey is savage. No, it is. You're right. I'm trying to think, I was going to say, like, taking their lunch. But that's not what it is. Or if we took over their maple syrup factories, how about that? It's taking their wife.

That's what it is. It's what it is, man. The thing most dear to you, that is yours. This is your thing. It's true. And we just took it. We're the villain in this whole situation, by the way. Let's be clear.

We're the bad guy. When are we not? The Kachuk brothers, hard name to say, by the way. What kind of name is Kachuk? Is that, is that, is that, is that, uh, Eskimo, Inuit? Is that American Indian? What is it? Kachuk with a T.

Their father was a long time, uh, NHL player. They're from Scottsdale, Arizona. Yeah, it's, I don't buy that. That's not, they're not from Scots. Where's their dad from? They're born there. Look where he's from. Let's see.

Yeah, but the point is, Like Patrick said, their dad played in the NHL forever. He's from Melrose, Massachusetts. Look up ethnic origin of Kachuk. Look that up, please. Damn, we're just assuming that he's not American. Yeah, like, what is this? No, this has nothing to do with American.

It's Ukrainian. Is your own personal curiosity? What is it? Ukrainian. Ukrainian. Yeah. Okay. Russian.

Yeah, is your... By the way, It's a hard name to say. Spell it for me to a day's real quick. Oh, boy. T, C-H-A-C-U-K-C-K. Huh. T-Chuk-C-T.

Well, that's not how they spell it. They spell it T-K. Oh, yeah, sorry, sorry. T-K-A-C-H-U-K. Did you spell me the phonetic? No, I spelled the way I typed it in Google. It sounds like a government agency. So the T is silent

Kachuk Is that right? Just forget the T Yep Kachuk It's a Polish translation of Ukrainian I believe

Yeah James your personal curiosity Is not piqued Like what kind of name is that Have you ever met Somebody else named Kachuk No

I don't know This one just doesn't stoke my embers I'm not asking the question I got some ideas on Sullivan I got it What is Laverty. Is that English? Let's see.

There's like some... You don't know? There's like some Scots Are you wearing a quarter zip? Are you wearing a quarter zip zipped down to mid-chest? It's most of a... No, it's not a quarter-zip. It's more like a... One of these.

Oh, it's a tan shirt you have under there. How did you think of us? Yeah, I thought you were full on and zipped down to the sternum. Do you think, if that were real, do you think that would have worked? No. Laverty is a Gaelic name, by the way.

What is? Laverty is a Gaelic name. It's very related to Laverty, Havarty, Havertie, Flaherty. Yeah. I don't know. I have Mayflower relatives, so that's all I know. We're off. Of course you do.

Young establishment, James. We're off on a tangent here. Okay, let's just do a recap of why we're doing this. Okay, first, they booed the national anthem at the Four Nations Cup in Canada. Oh, say, can you see by the dawn's early light? What so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last we did. Okay. Okay. Thumbs down. That's in Montreal. Now, this is, you know, it's inspired by 51st state stuff, right? You know, Governor Trudeau. But the Americans weren't having it. And specifically, the Kachuk brothers. Matthew and Brady, Kachuk. And apparently they had to talk ahead of time about who was going to go first. But it all happened in the first. seconds of the game. My wife didn't understand

how that's possible because they stopped the clock. So they dropped the puck and gloves go to the ice immediately. Let's show you. Do you have them all together or one at a time? They're just kind of like shortened versions of each. Okay, let's watch

the first fight. This is Matthew Kachuk, right? He looks like he doesn't know how to use his arms. Okay, then we got the second fight. Brady Kachukkah, now we've got the third fight. J.T. Miller. Okay, nine seconds.

They dropped the puck. Matthew Kachuk drops the gloves. It's his first name, right? Matthew, we're getting that right? Patrick? Yes. He's a Florida Panther. Am I allowed to say that?

I don't know. Yes, it is his first name. Homer. He drops the gloves immediately. and gets to swing in. What do you think about the hockey fight, by the way? Grab the sweater with one hand and punch with the other.

Great. So what you do it? You should do it in real life. They're entertaining, but nobody really gets that. I mean, I would say the Americans won two of the three fights. They stop it when you get thrown to the ice. And even though, you know, the Kachuk brothers were winning the fight, they do slip and fall, and the Canadian gets on top of them.

They end the fight. So that's not a loss, wouldn't you say? The other one was a tie. Be the guy that goes down. No, you've got to see how many licks you get in. You know, I think those two, the third guy was way undersized compared to the Canadian. J.T. Miller was way undersized because that Canadian dude.

Way. And he got pummeled a little bit. Yeah. But it's just so badass. And I love it was the brothers. It was just awesome. And it didn't stop. You know, like, oh, they got it out of their system.

It didn't stop. Because you've got these hits that kept going during the game. Like, the Americans were laying it on. Oh, the Canadians all game long. I mean, what's a declete? De-ice? D-ice. When you de-cletes?

Yeah. De-ice somebody? Yeah. I mean, those bodies are horizontal. Canadians got some good looks in. It was. But Americans were level of physical. But best of all, we won the game.

It's just three unanswered goals. It just reminds you of that scene in Shrek when the little lawyer guy goes up to the ogre and he's got this like proclamation, it's like, you must do this. And Shrek just rips back. Oh, yeah, you and what army? There we go. It's just a great metaphor for this whole scenario. It's not at all like what happened in Shrek.

Not at all. I don't see that. It's the big, mighty Americans saying you're going to tell us what to do, give us a break. But not in this because we're not. I mean, at this point, I think we might have been favored over Canada, were we? Or it was a really close game as projected. Yeah. We're good now.

But this is their sport. This is their thing. That's why I say it's like taking their wife. Like, this is their thing. One might say it's all they have. I'm just kidding. Got to stop using that metaphor. I'm being kicked out of my family.

Dan, you married a Canadian. I know. This is so bad. I mean, you keep doing this thing. Like, you got let me do it. I know. I'm so sorry. I've never even been to Canada.

I'm, Me and my wife got in our first, like, fight. Not really, I'm joking, but, you know, it was tough. Because I'm defending America, baby. Come on. Oh, yeah. She'll make a great American. Awesome.

Yeah. A northern American. Patrick brought this up earlier. It's also, look, I actually get the Canadian perspective a little bit. Like, if you were calling us the 51st state and calling him Governor Trump, at some point, some national pride would kick in, right? And I don't begrudge the Canadian some national pride. I don't.

But look, there's your team. team and there's my team. And even if I'm the villain here, it's my team. You come at my team and my national anthem, I don't care if I'm the bad guy. This is my bad guy. And I think the Canadians are also mistaken on the popularity. I saw two interesting responses. One, hey Americans, we're not booing you and we're not booing your hockey team. We're booing your president. Well, you know what? That president has like a 65% approval rating right now. That president and everything that he's saying and doing is a great representation of America. Now, if you disagree and you're on the left or you're Canadian, you disagree with

me because you say, well, this 20% doesn't like him. I'm just here to tell you, you're in the minority now. This is an accurate reflection of the American mindset. So if you want to be mad at all of us, be mad at all of us. And the thing about Canada is it just needs to be some realism. I want you to have your national pride. I appreciate your national pride. But you depend on America. You depend on the American economy. You depend on American national defense. So if we're the villain, maybe we should have put into context every way in which we are the hero as well for that country. So, again, I don't begrudge you your national pride and your defensiveness in this situation. I don't. But at some point, you have to recognize the state of play and reality.

And the state of play is, this is America. I mean, we're the United States of America. Yeah. The other response was I didn't realize Americans were so triggered by booing their national anthem. I saw this guy. He's kind of like belittling us. And what I would say to that is, we're a nation born of blood. We are a nation born of revolution. Okay? Every other British colony got their way somewhere other way, like Canada.

Okay? So you want to say we're triggered? Be careful. Be careful. Okay. This is bred in. to us who we are. You want to offend us? You want to make us your villain? You want to make us your enemy? We are not compliant. We're born of blood and revolution. So you want to call it

triggered? Whatever. But before you go booing our national anthem, you might know who you're messing with here. You might just go, this dude's a little crazy, you know? This guy, he's not easily subdued. You were. That's cool. You were subdued. You complied. You know. You did your thing, whatever you were with the Brits, and they've granted you your sovereignty. But we here, we don't do that stuff. We don't put up with foreigners telling us what to do and booing our national anthem.

Not in this house. That's who we are. That's why the spirit of Trump is just so inherently American. Fafo. And Patrick talked about this. This is what I was saying in our conversation. It's led to this rise in nationalism and not just in America. and you're seeing it as a response in places like Canada.

And the question then, is that a good thing or a bad thing? And I think that we all agree here. It's pretty, it's a good thing. It's like you should be proud to be from Canada. You should. Just don't mess with the U.S. Go ahead, two days. Yeah, I mean, it's become a thing since Trump,

I feel like if you are patriotic about being an American, it's seen as more of a conservative thing these days because Democrats somehow don't like this country and how things are going. But I think it's ridiculous. some people see it that way. But every other country, like you said, has national pride and nationalism, and you should. And you shouldn't be ashamed at that.

You are where you... You know, every other country has national pride. Let me think about that for a second. Okay. First of all, Mexicans do. Mexicans do. You ever been to a U.S. first Mexico soccer game? Yeah.

You ever been to that? Soccer is a great point. Yeah. It's something else. Now, I can't speak to Europe. I think they have a lot of cultural pride. I don't know that they have nationalistic pride.

I don't know if that's a direct correlation. Do you see what I'm saying? Look at the World Cup, though. England? Oh, yeah, the World Cup. Sure. Yeah, yeah, I get it on the World Cup. But, okay, so nationalism

is a little bit like populism. It's really healthy, but can burn out of control. Meaning, if you are two nationalists, it can manifest into essentially what we looked at with World War I, right? And, you know, us against the world, us against this. But the flip side of that is globalism, which we've tried for half a century. Also, honestly, I think a pretty grotesque experiment of melding us all into something that's supposed to be, but is not, the same.

Under these values, they got increasingly, you know, weird, what we're supposed to eat, what we're supposed to drive what we're supposed to listen to everything and so i don't think that like nationalism is i think it's better than globalism absolutely better than globalism so i think it is a good thing to see canada proud of being Canadian i think it's a great thing that we're i'm a nationalist i'm a nationalist i'm an american nationalist you know it it guides me more now than ideology used to guide me like conservatism or libertarianism like what is good for America. You have to hold true to some principles

while you pursue that because that's who you are. But I think it's good. And I think it's good for everyone, not just America. Yeah, I mean, marrying into a Canadian family, they're very proud of being Canadian. You know, they love it.

And it's just like we do. I mean, they have their own things they're proud of, which are different than ours, but they're still very proud of them. It makes them who they are. I like somebody proud from being from Massachusetts. I like somebody proud from being from Oklahoma. I like somebody proud from being in all of the unique places in our country.

Except for the Northeast. Connecticut. Connecticut pride. What does that look like? I have Connecticut pride. We have the best pizza in the entire country. Pizza and lobsters and clam bakes. That kind of thing?

Yep. Lobster rolls Like in a state If we had a state Off I don't know what the competition is War I don't know what the competition is

We'd lose Like how quickly does Connecticut fall Of well Connecticut just goes Nah forget it I don't care that much Yeah well That white flag is going up

Real fast Forget Forget might How about You know how like the Afghan Forces against us Like one of the things, the problem is, like, they're not going to win the fight, but they will fight forever, you know what I mean?

And because they're, whatever, they're cultural and I don't think it's as nationalistic as much as its tribal and so forth affiliation. Like, which American states would be win or lose the last men fighting in defense of their state? Texas would be the last one. I think it would be. I mean, it would be up there. Florida. Montana. with because you have Florida man

we have our seminal You just have crazy people I think there would be too much infighting in Florida Georgia would be a little more organized I think you have too many transients in Florida I think you have too many transients in Florida

like your population is a lot of transplants you know what I mean which is happening in Texas too that's the south part of the state so like Florida is rarely like two states and one got the swamp in the beach Do you feel like the Florida flag is flying everywhere you go in Florida?

Like do you, are people like real proud, I'm from Florida? You know? Like for real, I don't think of it high on that. There's Florida pride. Not like Texas where you guys like, that's your whole identity, but, you know. Texas feels very nationalistic. Like, you guys kind of got your own. Who would be second to Texas?

Would it actually be Massachusetts? No. Last in a fight, you mean? There's some pretty Bostoners. Just hold tight to their allegiance to where they are and where they're from. Mass is pretty tough. I feel like Massachusetts dudes are proud of it and let you know real quick. I'm from Massachusetts.

Californians, I mean, there used to be a lot more pride than theirs now. But I think I'm going to have a fight. Go ahead. In a fight. You have like Appalachians. Tennessee. Like you don't want to mess with those guys. Like, yeah, Tennessee, West Virginia.

Like, don't go into West Virginia. Central Virginians. The Charlottesville types. I feel like after Texas, it's going to be like Tennessee, Georgia, Massachusetts. And then the first of fall, might be Connecticut. Or Rhode Island. Yeah, they'd be done. Or Delaware.

Eesh, pathetic. Well, you just have to push by it. Maybe Delaware. Well, on this day. day on this night it was USA and we vanquished Canada took their wife all right that's going to do it for us today here on the will cane show hope you be back with us again tomorrow same time same place YouTube Apple Spotify Facebook we'll see you next time Listen to ad-free with a Fox News podcast plus subscription on Apple Podcasts.

And Amazon Prime members, you can listen to this show, ad-free on the Amazon music app. Listen to the all-new Brett Bear podcast featuring Common Ground, in-depth talks with lawmakers from opposite sides of the aisle, along with all your Brett Bear favorites like his All-Star panel and much more. Available now at Fox Newspodcasts.com or wherever you get your podcasts.