onder if they're real. That's the first question.

All right apparently Hunter Biden asked for a retainer of two billion dollars per year plus a success fee because two million a year not enough. You also need a success fee to help unfreeze money belonging to the Libyan government. This was in 2015 while his father was still vice president.

What? What am I reading? Is this real? And now it's breaking news. So like most news you should say to yourself maybe it's not real. It could be a fake email that somebody got or something. But what if this is real? If this is real how is Hunter Biden going to unfreeze Libyan money with all of his Libyan unfreezing money connections that he personally had? Not through his father who was vice president of the United States. There's no conceivable way that he could have gotten this job done without his father, is there? Or dealing with people who want to make his father happy but it's the same thing.

So here's what's going to happen. I feel like nothing. I feel like this story will come out, we will believe it is true, and nothing will happen, right? Doesn't it feel like nothing's going to happen? Because this is clearly a crime isn't it? Or if it's not a crime it's something terrible.

Now apparently the project didn't go forward so maybe that gives them an out because it didn't happen. It was just an offer. But oh my god. Oh my god if this is true. Oh my god. I mean it's as bad as the other stuff we've already heard but it's additive to that. RICO. Interesting. I'm seeing in the comments there could be a RICO case. I don't know. Could there? I don't know anything about that stuff. But to the point that it would be an organized conspiracy. I know I wouldn't rule it out.

All right. Tucker Carlson being provocative again. I'm gonna tell you what he said and then I'll give you my comments on it. So he quoted Joe Biden in 2015 I guess or so. Made this comment. So Joe Biden said somewhere quote an unrelenting stream of immigration. Nonstop, nonstop folks like me who are Caucasian of European descent for the first time in 2017 will be an absolute minority in the United States of America. Absolute minority. Fewer than 50 percent of the people in America from then on will be white European stock. That's not a bad thing. That's a source of our strength.

All right so the key words here are that Biden says that having lots of immigration and making the United States not majority white European is quote not a bad thing and quote a source of our strength.

So to that Tucker says, he goes that's the reason to reduce the political power of people. So this is Tucker's commentary that Biden has admitted that it's to reduce the political power of people whose ancestors lived here and dramatically increased the proportion of Americans newly arrived from the third world. And then Tucker said that Biden went further and said that non-white DNA is a source of our strength.

Did that happen? Did Biden say that non-white DNA is the source of our strength? Did you hear that in the quote? Right so that's Tucker's summary that Biden said that non-white DNA is the source of our strength.

Let me read his exact quote again. Biden said that we'll be no longer a majority white European and he said that's not a bad thing. That's the source of our strength.

All right so I'm seeing in the comments most people say yeah you said it right there. There's the quote. There's Tucker's interpretation. That interpretation is correct right? I'm seeing only yeses to that. It's right here. So Tucker's interpretation is accurate right? Because I read you the quote. I read you the interpretation and you're saying yeah that's it.

Oh wait now I'm seeing some nos. Where did all the nos come from all of a sudden? Did you think I was tricking you? Now it's all nos. I'm seeing in the comments nope no Biden did not say what Tucker says he says.

My interpretation of what Biden said when he said that's not a bad thing, that's the source of our strength. Who's us? Who's our? Who's our strength? The United States, right? So can you say that moving from a majority white European stock to a more diverse mix would be the argument that that makes us stronger?

So Tucker's interpretation seems to be that it brings in better DNA. The brown people have better DNA than the white people who are already there. I don't think that's what Biden's saying. To me it looks like Biden is saying that what makes the United States great is that we're diverse.

Now do you think that diversity has ever helped the United States? Well it certainly helped when we got those German scientists after World War II. I don't know if you want to call that diverse but I don't know how many other Nazis or Nazi sympathizers or workers or anything, well I wouldn't call them sympathizers, but I don't know how many people from the Nazi regime we brought to the United States but it helped didn't it? There's a little diversity that helped. That's a weird example I know.

But do you buy the argument that diversity is an advantage? See that's the area. Tucker took it in a different direction with DNA. I don't think that was ever the intention. I think it was just diversity, diversity.

Well I'm going to give you the counter argument. I'm seeing lots of people say no. Here's the frame I'd put on it. What is it about the United States that made it work? Right? Well a lot of things. We had lots of natural resources and stuff like that. We didn't have a world war on our shores. So there were lots of things that made the United States work and some of it was luck.

But I would argue that the biggest thing that makes it work is how people got here. Meaning that the people who said to heck with this country I'm in, I'm going to go make something happen somewhere else. Don't you think that that is a really selective group?

Suppose you started with the population of the world. You said all right I'm just going to put all the people who have the following qualities in one country. Those will be the people who couldn't stand the country they were in because it wasn't free enough, didn't give them enough options, and they were going to take a tremendous risk to get out of there and improve their life. Right? So that's the group that you filtered. People who will take a big risk, succeed because they don't get to this country unless they succeed, succeed at something really really hard because the long-term advantage will be good. How many of those do you want in your country?

How many people with that quality? We're not talking about where they came from. Any culture doesn't matter. The culture wherever they came from, they took a gigantic risk to get here, pulled it off, made it work, and they were planning for the distant future. They weren't planning for what was happening today. They were planning years in advance. So their mindset was years in advance, hard work, risk, and freedom. And we got all of them. Well we didn't get all of them but that's basically what makes up the United States right now.

I would argue that any time that, yeah brave, brave risk takers. I would argue that anytime you take the best of every culture those are the best right in my opinion. The people who can make that work and are thinking so far in advance that they're thinking generations in advance literally. They're thinking their children and grandchildren. That's why they come here.

I would think that if you took those people out of every country and put them in one country that country would rule the world every time. So in order for that to work, picking, I'm gonna say they're the best people from each culture. If you take the best people from each culture, the ones who have that quality about them, that doesn't, remember all the nos you had and everybody said no no no there's no way diversity makes us stronger. But I just gave you an argument where we got the best of all the diverse cultures because they're the only ones who could get here. The ones who weren't the best couldn't get here. They didn't. They were just going to take care of what was happening right in front of them. They were not long-term planners. They weren't willing to take a risk. They couldn't figure it out. Well that's the argument.

So they only want free stuff. I think there's certainly a number of people who are not the cream of the crop. Everybody's different so you're not going to get only the cream of the crop. But I think on average you're bringing in the good people. And you also need people to do every other kind of job in society.

Now here's another thing to think of. Can the United States survive if our birth rate falls? And what would happen to our natural birth rate if we didn't have massive immigration? I'm not in favor of massive immigration. I'm just asking the question. What would happen to our birth rate if we didn't have massive immigration? It wouldn't sustain the country. It's a problem. We actually need young people economically. It's a requirement. Where were they going to come from? We weren't going to have them.

I mean I suppose we could have done some massive persuasion to get Americans who are already here to have more babies. I don't know that that would work. I feel as if the one and only way that you can be economically viable is to bring in young people. If you're not making young people you have to bring them in and bring in populations that have more babies.

Now am I arguing therefore that we should open the borders and just let everybody in? No that's crazy. The way we're doing it now, crazy. It's all wrong. What I'm arguing and I've always argued is you need a totally secure border and then you can decide based on economics, based on economics, how many to let in in any given year and maybe what types of people to let in. So I think you have to control it but you gotta let in a good number of people. I don't know what the right number is but you almost have to take immigration and you've got to treat it pretty seriously.

I can't argue what the absolute number should be because that would take a lot of research and I'm not even sure you could ever know that. But I do know you need a lot of it. We may have twice as much as we need right now but you need a lot of it. And if you don't have it you're dead.

Did I make my case with just the argument I gave that we're really at least and for the most part we're trying to pick off the risk takers and the higher quality people from every country that can get here? No.

All right so as per typical very rarely do people change their minds. Nope nope nope. I'm seeing lots of nos. What would be your argument? What would be your argument against the notion that we're filtering in the right kind of risk takers and the people who think ahead? That's not who's coming. Rich guy no.

I'm completely aware that there are tons and tons of just workers coming in because they heard the crowd was moving north and they just got in the line. So clearly there could be tons of people who are not the cream of the crop. I'm not claiming that. What I am claiming is that we're getting enough of the cream of the crop, the risk takers, that we come out ahead. That would be the argument. You come out ahead even though you bring in a lot of common laborers who were maybe just going to break even economically. You don't need that many superstars to start a billion dollar company etc.

Yes legal immigration. Yes if I didn't say that explicitly I only favor legal immigration. So I certainly don't favor whatever's happening now.

Diversity of appearance means nothing if people are thinking the same. Well I'm saying that we don't want diversity in one way. There's one kind of diversity you don't want which is you don't want people who don't want to be successful. You want the kind of diversity where it's all kinds of people but they want to make the world a better place. Like that's the diversity you want. You don't want diversity of thought because like some of them are terrorists, some of them don't want to work, some of them just want you to take care of them. I don't want that diversity. That's the diversity of thought I don't want at all.

I want people who have some shared notion of the United States and what success looks like and they want it. That's who I want. Yeah I get more of those anyway.

I don't think Tucker's interpretation of it was quite spot-on but very provocative as he always is. Different cultures have different thoughts. True enough. But I do think that the United States attracts people who have on average compatible notions with freedom and capitalism.

I never met an illegal immigrant that didn't want to get money to take back home. So what's wrong with that? What is wrong with that? I mean the money that they send back home is what keeps everybody home. If they weren't sending money back home those people would be coming here too. So I'm not sure that's the negative you think it is.

Just looking at some of your comments. You're dreaming if you let me just read this. So hard as they're going by. If you think that getting risk takers who are going to help grow our economy, we're seeing people because they're motivated by the takers.

All right so the point here would be that the people coming here for free stuff are the dominant thing maybe. But would it matter to my point? Let's say my point was that we're bringing the cream of the crop but you say to me Scott Scott Scott you might be getting 10 percent like that but 90 are just people coming here for free stuff.

Do you think those immigrants don't want to work? How many do you think the immigrants came here for free stuff and didn't think they were going to work hard? I feel like zero. We're getting the people who want to work more than Americans want to work.

Now when you say free stuff I would just say that it's a better life. I think they want to give and get also. I don't think they want to get without working. I think they came here to work. Do you really not think they came here to work? And I think they came here to work under a system that would reward them better than the system they were in. What's wrong with that? That's what we all do. We're all doing that. We're looking for the better system that treats us better for the same amount of work. Do you hate them for that?

All right so back to my point. Let's say we got 10 percent of the people I'm describing like the go-getters, the risk takers, the entrepreneurs, the people planning ahead. And you get 90 percent of the people who just want to work hard and have a better life. Did you come out ahead or behind? That's my scenario. Did you come out ahead or behind?

You only got 10 percent of the people who are awesome like really think ahead entrepreneurs going to make this country great. 90 are just here because the crowd came here because it's a better life but they want to work hard. No doubt they want to work hard. Come out ahead or behind?

I said John says behind. How do you know? Are you an economist? I've got a degree in economics and I don't know. I feel if I had to guess I'd say ahead but again it depends on amount right? There's some amount of immigration that puts you behind. There's some amount that would put you ahead. I don't know where that cutoff point is but we ought to find it.

Lyle says Scott is surprised his audience is overwhelmingly racist. No I'm not. You think that surprised me? My view, all people are racist. So I would expect all of my audiences to be racist all the time no matter who I was talking to. It's just a complete illusion that they're non-racist. They're just people who think of it different ways. They communicate different. But the thing that makes everybody racist is that your brain is a pattern recognition device.

You know your lawnmower can only be a lawnmower. Your dishwasher can only be a dishwasher. Dishwasher can't mow the lawn. Lawnmower can't clean your dishes. All right your brain is just one thing. It's a pattern recognition machine. It can't be anything else. And