Where Are the ‘Neocons’? Exposing the Left’s New Anti-Israel Narrative

 

Recently, during the confusion, the anger, the controversy over the memorandum of understanding concerning negotiations that will ensue with the United States and Iran, JD Vance, our vice president, was tasked with visiting the media and being the public spokesman on behalf of the memorandum.  

It wasn’t an enviable job. He’s very skilled. I think we all admire him a great deal. 

But one of the strange things that followed was there was criticism in Israel, and that would be natural. We are a large country and very powerful, and we’re 7,000 miles away from Iran. Israel is a very small country of roughly 10 million people, and it’s right proximate to Iran. So obviously, our ultimate strategic aims and agendas are not always identical. 

But Vance made the argument that there were people in the Israeli Cabinet who were too critical of the deal, and he wanted to kind of slap them down and say, no one likes you in the world except … I should say supports you except us, i.e., you should show more gratitude. 

No. 2, we give you over $3 billion of aid, and 75% of your missile defense is contingent upon us. Donald Trump, see, is your best friend you’ll ever have, as you have acknowledged yourself.  

And fourth, the United States policy is the United States policy. It’s not affected by other people trying to influence it. 

This was kind of extraordinary because in that speech, he was more critical of the Israelis, really, than he was of the Iranians because he talked in the sense that we’re dealing with Iranian moderates, and there are people who might emerge as a new Iran. He didn’t have that tolerance, it seems, for our ally Israel. 

The question of whether Israel is an asset? Yes, we give over $3.5 billion to Israel, but unlike all of the other money that we give—we give $1 billion to Egypt, we give almost $1 billion to Jordan. Both, by the way, are autocracies. They’re not constitutional systems or consensual governments like Israel that’s Western. And we gave $17 billion—$17 billion, six times what we gave Israel—as late as 2023. I think it’s been over $100 billion so far. 

So, Israel’s not the only recipient of U.S. aid, but unlike all the other recipients, maybe with the exception of Ukraine lately, it’s a strategic partner. Its intelligence is vital to our knowledge of the Middle East, especially of terrorists, which it shares daily with us. 

It is a laboratory of U.S. weapons. Every day they are flying F-15s, F-16s—latest models of each—F-35s, using Patriot missiles. And almost daily they consult with our people and say, this is what we’ve learned as a flaw. This is what we’ve learned as unrealized advantages. And that knowledge is incorporated into our defense profile. 

Another thing that was—so it is an asset, and this is quite aside from the idea that there are commonalities between Israel and the West in general and the United States in particular.  

We both are part of a long Judeo-Christian moral tradition. We both are consensual governments. We both have freedoms. Israel is not as other nations in the Middle East, threatening death sentences to some people who say they want to break away from their religion.  

You can break away from Judaism if you want in Israel. Try that in a Gulf state or Saudi Arabia in the case of Islam, and you’re going to be in big, big trouble. 

One of the things he said was that the neocons—and we’ve heard that word neo, neo, neocons. That’s a term for people who were, in the former decades of their life, their formative decades, they were liberal, so we put the Greek prefix “neo,” meaning new cons—and then they flipped during the Reagan years or the Bush years into conservatives, and many of them were Jewish Americans, most notably people like Donald Kagan, Norman Podhoretz, Irving Kristol.  

Their children and others in the next generation have been strong supporters, so the idea or the accusation is we are going to war against Iran because a small influential group of neocons feels their first loyalty is to Israel, and defending Israel is not in the national interest because there are 550 million Muslims surrounding Israel.  

So, in terms of population or oil wealth, they are geostrategically more valuable. That is not true in itself, but what I’m curious about is: Who are the neocons? 

If you look at the primary spokesman for the neoconservative movement that happened incidentally to be Jewish, they all detest Donald Trump now. 

Bill Kristol, he was the arch spokesman of the neoconservative movement. He’s advocated voting for [Zohran] Mamdani. Professor Elliott Cohen, radically anti-Trump. Washington Post columnist Max Boot, hysterically anti-Trump. Former National Review writer Mona Charen, radically anti-Trump. Jonah Goldberg bolted away from National Review, radically anti-Trump. I could go on and list David Frum, radically anti-Trump.  

Some of them in cases are voting Democrat even though the Democratic Party is now a socialist-Islamist party. 

So, there is no neocon movement anymore that is an inside lobby for the Israelis. 

Second point I want to make very quickly is there is a larger climate on campuses today of antisemitism. We’re seeing candidates like Mr. [Abdul] El-Sayed in the Senate in Michigan, or we’re seeing Graham Platner, who are openly anti-Israel, but also anti-Jewish. 

And I think I could be frank and say, if you are a Jewish American, you cannot run on a national ticket on the Democrat side. If Joe Lieberman were going to be nominated today, it would be impossible to be a vice presidential candidate as he was in 2004. The antisemitism is so marked and explicit in the Democratic Party.  

So, we have to be very careful when we talk about inside influence and a general climate where already Jews are unfairly targeted and suspect. 

And I’ll finish with Lebanon. Donald Trump was critical as well. He said, you can’t blow up a whole building when a Hezbollah person walks in. And I think JD said something to the effect—I’m just paraphrasing—you can’t kill your way out of your problem. 

But if you say to Lebanon and you say to Israel, tomorrow, just don’t fire, either one of you. Israel will be fine with that. The people who are breaking the truce are Hezbollah, which has hijacked the Lebanese government. The Lebanese government hates Hezbollah just as much as we do and just as much as Israel does. But Hezbollah isn’t even a nation. It is terrorist thuggery. Its relation to Lebanon is like the cartel’s relation to Mexico. 

And they are attacking Israel daily. They had 160,000 missiles originally. They have shot thousands into Israel. Israel tries to be disproportionate, just like we are. If somebody attacks us, we attack them 10 times harder. Why? To create deterrence. 

So, when somebody shoots missiles or drones at Israel and then runs back to the suburbs of Beirut and has them stashed in the basement and thinks, you can’t hurt me, Israel targets that basement. It does not blow up the entire apartment building by intent. It tries to blow up the particular areas within the apartment. 

It is much more careful to target individual Hezbollah killers than the Hezbollah people are willing to target the IDF. They target everybody. 

And again, if you don’t want Lebanon to be an issue—and I don’t know why it’s even in a memorandum of understanding. It has nothing to do with our effort to disarm Iran—it shouldn’t be in there at all. That should be something the Israelis handle and Hezbollah handles. And all we need to do is say, don’t give money to Hezbollah. But that’s an Israeli-Hezbollah question. 

And Iran is desperately trying to cling onto something to get leverage, but we shouldn’t allow them that leverage. 

Why America’s Universities Are Falling Apart

 There’s been a lot of news lately about the university’s higher education crisis, and universities are now competing for students rather than students competing with each other to get into universities.  

Maybe the elite universities still, because of their brand name, although they’ve suffered a great deal and their admissions reflect that and their applications are down, they’ll always make it—the seven or eight so-called top tier. 

But most four-year colleges and universities are in a bad strait. And why is that? 

First of all, it’s demography. During the 1960s, the fertility rate reached, in 1960, about 3.6 children per family. It’s recovered a little bit the last three years, but it’s 1.7. So, the cohort of 17-, 18-, and 19-year-olds is less than half. 

So, they are competing for a much smaller pool of young people. 

The second thing that’s really turned people off is that tuition has increased, over the last 50 years, three times more than the annual rate of inflation.  

Now, why is that? 

Mostly it is because of administrative bloat.  

Where I work, at Stanford University, The Wall Street Journal recently suggested that if you count graduate and undergraduate students at Stanford, and you count administrators and their staff, there is roughly one administrator or staffer for every student. 

This is because the university became in loco parentis. It said, “I am a parent, and I’m going to monitor the 360-degree, 24/7 life of a student. If he’s not happy, we’re gonna deal with it. If somebody accuses you of sexual harassment, we’re gonna deal with it. We’re gonna deal with everything, and we’re going to try to be political. 

“Our job is not disinterested, inductive education. It is to turn out left-wing people who can offer an antithesis to the family, nuclear family, the community, religion, etc. We believe society is biased with corporations and family and religion, and we’re gonna offer an antithesis.

That turned off people, believe me. 

Professors themselves are unique in American life. Nobody else has the same conditions of employment. After six years, they get tenure. Outside the exclusive schools, it’s almost automatic. Where I worked at the [California State University], I think 90% of assistant professors got tenure. 

Release time is very common now. You can say, “I want to be a part-time administrator,” or “I am tutoring,” or “I have a special project,” and you can get a reduced teaching load. 

Remember that the teaching load has gone way down. In most colleges, it’s between two and four courses a year. A year. 

Maybe not at the CSU, but even CSU has gone down on many campuses. That’s the California State University system, the largest in the world. It has gone from four classes to three classes a semester. 

And part of the way that they finesse that was when you increase the administrative budget and you increase release time for full-time faculty and decrease teaching, you hire part-time, temporary lecturers, and you exploit them. 

You pay them about 40% per class of what you would pay a full or associate professor. You don’t really give them the same type of benefits. And at some universities, the percentage of courses that are taught by part-time, exploited lecturers is getting up to 40% and even 45%. 

Another thing that turned the public off about these universities: They grant-gouge. 

We’re starting to learn that, say, on NIH grants, many of these universities were charging not 10% or 15% commission, but 40% and even higher. 

In other words, if a professor got a million-dollar grant from the federal government, a university would step in and say, “Well, you’re using your office or your phone or your lab, so we want 40% of it.” 

And they use that because the whole system is financially unsound. Financially unsound. 

Largely because, again, of administrative bloat and the creation of centers and programs that have nothing to do with education but form a huge overhead. 

Another thing that got people very worried is another way they financed this debt, expanded their administrators, and cut back on teaching: They brought in over a million foreign students. 

And unlike American students, there are no scholarships. There are no discounts. Foreign students pay the premium, if not a little bit higher tuition. 

Now, the problem with that is when you bring in 300,000 students from China or over 200,000 from the illiberal Middle East, and when you look at the origin of most of these students, they are from autocratic and illiberal places in Africa, Asia, and the Western Hemisphere, particularly the Middle East and China. 

Then you start to politicize the student body, and you can see what happened after Oct. 7. 

We had enormous demonstrations, often led by foreign students, chanting, “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.” That’s essentially code for destroying the state of Israel. 

And we had violent demonstrations often led by people from the Middle East. 

And, of course, the FBI suggests that 1% to 5% of Chinese students are actively engaged in espionage. 

The public knows this, and they’re not fond of that idea—that sometimes their children don’t get into school because the universities are letting in foreign students because they pay a premium. 

DEI did damage—diversity, equity, inclusion. 

The idea that the universities, despite state referenda and Supreme Court decisions and the Civil Rights Act, were deliberately, consciously, insidiously using race as a barometer to admit people, to hire people, to retain people, and to promote people on the basis of their superficial appearance, their sexual orientation, or their gender. 

It was entirely anti-meritocratic. It was like the Soviet commissar system. It was like the McCarthy period. 

If you wanted to get a job at a university, you had to fill out, in most cases, a diversity statement. 

And believe me, if you wrote on that diversity statement, “Honestly, I believe that DEI is anti-meritocratic,” you were not going to be hired. 

There’s another reason that these universities are in crisis. 

The federal government came in and guaranteed student loans. 

Once they did that, the universities jacked up the rate of tuition, as I said, three times higher on an annual basis than the inflation rate. 

So the government came in and said, “You guys can loan students money, and we will back it up, so they will pay you back with federally guaranteed dollars.” 

And we know now that there’s a 30% to 35% non-compliance rate, that people are either late or have defaulted. 

And so, when you have $1.7 trillion in debt and you see that the debt is increasing because the students are not graduating in four years—the average graduation now is six years. 

About 30% to 40% of people who enter college do not ever graduate. 

But the whole thing is subsidized by loans from banks that are guaranteed by the federal government, and that gave a green light for universities to offer these crazy courses that nobody wants—peace studies, race studies, Black studies, environmental studies, etc., studies—because the students took them and the government paid for them. 

And nobody worried about whether they graduated or whether employers found a well-educated and empirical product coming out with a B.A. 

Finally, we’re short a couple million plumbers, electricians, blue-collar carpenters, sheet rockers, and roofers. 

These are very important to the economy of the United States. 

But when these universities said, “Come to us, and maybe even if you don’t graduate—40% of you—or if those who do average six years, and even though you’re gonna run up a big debt, you can take psych and sociology. It’s a good time to kind of float around, live in your basement, and have a good time in your 20s.” 

But the economy answered back: We’re wasting kids’ formative years in their 20s. 

We need master electricians. We need oil workers. We need skilled carpenters. 

And the irony is that if you graduate with a bachelor’s degree in psychology or sociology versus being a master electrician at the age of 22, the electrician these days is going to be making $100,000-plus, and the sociology B.A., or the person with two or three years of psychology, is either going to be unemployed or not using that education at all in employment. 

Or, if he is hired, he will be making half of what the electrician or the roofer or the carpenter makes. 

Add it all up, and the universities are in bad shape, and they’re in desperate need of coerced reform because they will not reform on their own. 

Europe Refuses to Enforce the Rule of Law

 person 1: First of all, there have been protests—significant protests—against the murder of Henry Nowak in England and the attempted beheading of the gentleman, whose name I forget, forgive me, in Belfast. So throughout Ireland, throughout England, and including Scotland—Glasgow—there have been these protests.

So, here’s what I think is a typical response from your typical Eurocrat. This is John Swinney, the first minister of Scotland. Here’s the headline from The Scotsman newspaper over there:

“Scotland must stand against racism, hatred and intimidation.”

“First Minister John Swinney has said Scotland must stand against racism, hatred and intimidation after protests following a knife attack in Belfast.

“In a post on social media, Mr. Swinney said, ‘The scenes we saw in Glasgow, Edinburgh and Ayr last night are unacceptable. Scotland is a welcoming nation, and those who choose to make their lives here are valued members of our community. Racism, hatred and intimidation have no place in Scotland. We must stand against it.’”

Don’t you—

person 2: Where do they get this? Do they have an AI thing that always turns out this boilerplate? “This has no place here. This isn’t who we are.” All that stuff?

Why doesn’t he just admit that there’s no audit of the people coming into the U.K.? They come in illegally for the most part. They come from areas that are governed illiberally. They come with religious differences. They have ideas about women and homosexuals, other tribal people, people not of their tribe. They have very negative views of them.

And they won’t assimilate, integrate, or acculturate at a pace that would be expected of any other immigrant. So, they have gotten the message that they’re going to be subsidized with housing, education, food, and medicine, and they feel that the host owes them that.

Then, when they’re deterred from the consequences of their behavior—whether it’s a rape gang or walking down the street and hitting somebody—they go to the next level.

Now, “they” is a collective stereotype and generalization. But this demagogic politician doesn’t say anything about this. But he wants to give a soapbox platitude so that he feels good about himself. But he doesn’t understand that no one is listening to him anymore.

There’s an entire European movement, and if they don’t intervene and say, “We expect every single person in the U.K. to have come legally, and they must reside legally. If you’re an immigrant, you must be self-supporting and fully employed, and you will face the full force of the law just like subjects of the Crown. If you can’t do that, would you please leave?” They can’t say that. I don’t know why they can’t say it.

I don’t know how they got in this position where some cities are 20% to 30% non-Indigenous people, but it’s not working, and it’s going to spread.

The next thing that’s going to happen is that if they won’t address it in a sober and moderate fashion, people are going to get frustrated. We saw those two girls, I think they were from Scotland, remember? They were defending themselves from that predator.

person 1: With the knife and a hatchet?

person 2: Yeah. And she was trying to protect, was it her sister or her friend?

person 1: Her sister. Her sister.

person 2: Yeah. Everybody demonized her and said, “Oh, this is…” You know.

Then he was found guilty the other day of actually trying to attack them or solicit them in some fashion.

But if you allow grooming gangs and you don’t do anything about it, people are going to get frustrated, and they’re going to get violent.

You have to treat everybody equally under the law, and you have to have the rule of law. That’s where we learned the rule of law—from the Western tradition via Britain.

And if there’s no rule of law…

You know, here in the United States, there was just a poll that said it was overwhelming. Seventy percent wanted everybody deported who was here illegally and committed a crime.

I thought, “Well, that doesn’t do anybody any good. Who wouldn’t?”

Then I read down further: 56% of the population wants everybody deported who came here illegally.

How could that be when we’re told by the leftist media that all these people who are spitting at ICE, throwing rocks at them, and waving plastic phallic symbols represent the public?

Well, the public is tired of that. They look at the ICE agents and don’t see demonic figures. They see largely minority people who want a living and want to protect their communities, which are the most impacted by illegal immigration.

person 1: Yeah. Look, why is an elitist type—whether in government or media in England—who believes he has the right to say, “You lower-middle-class white dude are a racist for this and this reason”?

So, they have some racism calibration, but they won’t apply it to immigrants who have racial—

person 2: Because they have this Marxist, Foucauldian, Lacanian, Derridean, postmodern, Frantz Fanon idea that there is a binary. There’s no middle. There’s a victim and an oppressed person, and there’s a victimizer and an oppressor.

And the duty of all good Marxists is to—and they have redefined this. Marx didn’t talk about race. He talked about class. They said class doesn’t matter because many people on their side of the binary are wealthier than the so-called oppressor side.

Barack Obama is much, much, much, much wealthier than Joe Biden. His children are in much better shape than Hunter Biden.

Yet they are on the oppressed side. Nobody can define it. We don’t know what makes a person part of the oppressed side. I guess it’s one Confederate drop, one-sixteenth non-white blood, non-Christian faith, or whatever standard they use.

Once they went down that road of racial essentialism, they had to have something.

Even Native American tribes who went down that side said that nobody can be in charge of this casino unless they have tribal blood. Well, in our society, what does that mean? It means they have to have DNA, and I think it’s one-sixteenth or one-eighth.

You can see how absurd this is. It’s going back to the antebellum South. And that’s what they’re doing.

You can be very, very wealthy. You can be very privileged. You can have every advantage.

Cory Booker’s parents were corporate grandees. He grew up in a very upscale environment, and we’re supposed to think he is a champion of the oppressed?

Jasmine Crockett has two accents: one that reflects her middle-class, upscale private schooling and another that she puts on when she wants to be authentically inner-city.

It’s a joke. The whole thing is performance art, and everybody’s tired of it.

So, this guy is going to get up and lecture, lecture, lecture. But he should ask himself: If you say “black” today, or “non-white,” it’s usually in a positive sense.

But if you hear a government bureaucrat, a media figure, or a celebrity say “white,” it’s almost always in a negative context. It’s a pejorative.

And people who are somewhere between 67% and 71% of the population—

By the way, I think it’s a ridiculous rubric anyway. I live in a Hispanic area, and in the summer I am darker than many of my Hispanic friends. I see people at the bank every day speaking Spanish and they’re pure white.

I don’t know why we call them non-white. I don’t know why anybody calls anybody white or non-white. But that’s another story.

The point I’m making is that it’s always used as a pejorative, and that’s not sustainable. People will not put up with that.

When you add “deplorables,” “irredeemables,” Peter Strzok saying, “I smelled them all at Walmart,” the CNN commentator saying, “I have more teeth than everybody at a Trump rally,” Joe Biden saying, “ultra MAGA,” “semi-fascists,” “garbage,” and “chumps,” and then Barack Obama saying they cling to their guns and religion—

It’s time to quit that because there’s a big revolt, and you don’t want it to get like it is in Europe.

When you have the young Ukrainian woman butchered, and this conniver DeCarlos Brown is now suing the FBI, and then you just recently had the young kid walking outside his home in Philadelphia who was murdered, and the woman set on fire in Chicago—these high-profile black-on-white crimes—and then the reaction is…

I don’t know what the reaction is, but in the case of Karmelo Anthony, you had counter-demonstrations where they basically said he was the victim and the man he murdered was the oppressor.

When you have AI imagery of people urinating on Austin Metcalf’s supposed grave—I guess it was manufactured by AI, but the message was still hatred.

We have got to get rid of this university idea that if you’re on the victim side of the binary, you’re incapable of racism or oppression. That’s just a get-out-of-jail-free card. That is just an invitation to be racist.

The only thing that keeps us from behaving badly is some kind of deterrence, whether that’s religious, legal, social, or shame.

But if you remove those deterrents, you’re going to see human nature in the raw, with the veneer stripped off.

After Spencer Pratt’s Office Burned Down, He Declared, ‘It’s War’

 

person 2: Speaking of war, Victor, Spencer Pratt says it’s war.

On Friday, two things happened. One is his business mysteriously burned down.

person 1: I know it, it did. Not so mysteriously. I think some of his political opponents’ supporters did it, but who knows?

person 2: Yeah. But he also put out a concession video.

I’m going to read this now. This is from RedState:

Watch it. They’ll wish the mail-ballot fraud scheme to elevate [Nithya] Raman had never taken place.

Pratt says he’s moving on from the campaign phase of his mission to save Los Angeles to the next, more interesting phase, reminding people that his goal wasn’t to become mayor but to expose the corrupt machine and that he’s laser-focused on just that.

“Do you think they can really get rid of me that easily?” says Pratt. “Hey, morons, I didn’t get into this for political power. I got into this to expose the corrupt machine. Nothing’s changed. You enjoy your worthless meetings in City Hall. I’ve been lighting you up every single day, and now I don’t have to worry about offending CNN viewers.

“I don’t have campaign laws hamstringing me now. It’s war.”

He made threats. He’s got some videos and documents that are going to be very harmful to one of the two candidates.

, I think he’s here to stay. I don’t know. What do you think?

Hanson: Yeah, I think so. I think what he’s referring to is that every would-be whistleblower or discontented person is sending him material. He’s the person to do it, and he will air it, and that’s going to give him a lot of exposure and clout.

But when you run for office in Los Angeles, or California in general, what he’s basically saying is this, the subtext is this: Is it so hard to say that if you want to be a voter, then you don’t just go to get a building permit or apply for disability and give your name, and they mail it to you?

You just register to vote. You go to a state office, and you take the initiative, and you register. Then you give an address. You show a California driver’s license, which is now not required. You should have to have a driver’s license or a state-issued ID, one or the other.

They mail it. You give them an address. They check it on a computer to see if you’re actually at that address, and they mail you one ballot.

Then you take that ballot, and if you want to fill it out, we could call it an absentee ballot. Maybe you would be ill. But more likely, you should go to the polls, and you should show your California driver’s license again.

And we don’t do that.

But we do if you want to get disability. I must have been to 40 medical procedure appointments for this latest bout with cancer. I’m talking about blood draws. I’m talking about X-rays, CT scans, and lung-volume tests.

Every place I went: “Can I see your ID? Can I see your ID? Can I see your ID?”

But not to vote? Not to vote?

That’s just crazy.

So, what he’s saying is, you people conduct elections, and you have no idea who’s voting. You give licenses to people here illegally, and that license is used to get a registered vote, but you don’t even check if they’re at the address. You don’t even check if they know English.

Nobody has to know. How could you vote and not know the language of the country? By making an X. You can do that in California with a witness.

And then what’s so hard? India, you’re talking about India has 1.4 billion people. They don’t take a week to tally the ballots.

And what’s the good of saying, “Well, we authenticate”?

Well, you have to authenticate it because you have so many laxities built into this corrupt system. And even then, when you did that in the 2024 election, you only rejected 0.09% of the ballots. So, you’re not really auditing them. You’re letting them go right by you.

I think the election exposed that California has reached critical mass at this point. People said to themselves, “This state is dysfunctional. It can’t conduct honest, transparent elections with readily tabulated votes. Nobody trusts it anymore. It has no confidence from the population, and we understand what’s happening.”

300,000 to 500,000 people are leaving every year who are taxpayers in the middle- and upper-middle-income brackets.

When they go, then we have more entitlements, and more people come into the state, either legally or illegally, who are impoverished. And there’s less and less money to pay for more and more people who want federal, state, and local help in California.

And therefore, we’re going to do what? We’re going to raise the gas tax. We’re going to raise the income tax. We’re going to raise the property tax.

Then more people are going to go, and more people are going to come in to get more benefits. That’s where we’re in a doom loop.

And it’s not going to get better.

It is a Third World country. It’s falling apart.

And when you add $250 billion of fraud and stolen money—and I must say, trying to be as objective as I can, I’ve been following that story—I would conservatively suggest that, based on what’s in the paper and the names and online pictures of the people who have been arrested, 60% to 75% are immigrants.

So, that’s not a good look.

People come over here, and instead of kissing the soil and saying, “Thank God I’m in the United States. I owe so much to my host,” it’s, “Oh man, there’s nobody here. These people are stupid. They give away stuff. I’m going to get mine.”

That’s the wrong attitude.

Fowler: Hey, we flew them over here, even at our own expense, so they could then rip us off. It’s easy to connect those dots.

There’s an online publication out of Fresno, Victor. I coincidentally saw it the other day. I think it’s GV Wire. And it had an article by two nonprofit leaders from a Catholic organization.

They’re trying to do the Lord’s work, and we’re hurting in the Central Valley now. There are fewer donors, and the reason is people are leaving.

Hanson: They’re leaving. Just last week, two people that I would say are in the high-income brackets—they pay a ton of taxes—basically said, “I’m done.”

As one person said, “With the federal income tax and Medicare and the Obamacare and California’s 13.3% income tax, I pay 58% of my income. And I get the worst roads. I get gangbangers. I get high crime. I get filthy streets. I get homelessness. And I get elections like they have in Los Angeles.

“And we’re sitting on a bonanza of gas and oil, and we have $6.50 gas. We have the second- or third-largest forestry industry in the country, and we let it burn down. We have 60 million trees that burned up, and we drove everything out except maybe two companies.

“We have rare-earth minerals. We have everything. It’s the most richly endowed state in the country and the most beautiful, and it’s the most ill-governed.”

So, they’re leaving.

And I don’t know what’s going to happen. You get the impression that people want them to go. It’s like the Seattle mayor said, “Bye-bye.”

How California’s Election System Keeps Democrats in Power

 

person 1: So, , California polls or the California election results have come in, and I was wondering your thoughts, especially in LA, because there’s been lots of news this week and discussion about two things: dirty voter rolls, and then the New York Post had an article on how Nithya Raman was part and parcel to funding a social services by $600,000, and then they went out and paid or got homeless people and anybody else they could to register at that address. 

And so, my question is this: How many social services do you think have done that? And what is the impact of the number of votes they can bring in in that fashion, given that Nithya Raman won by 30,000 votes over Pratt?  

person 2: Well, with 65% of the vote, she was third. She was seven points behind. 

She even gave a tearful, teary-eyed, I lost. It’s so bad. But the point was, she didn’t—when all of these mail-in ballots came in in troves, they went out and they harvested votes. And they went to homeless people, and under the rules, they said you don’t need an address. You just get the lowest corner. 

Here’s five bucks, $4. Some people said $4. And we will register you. Oh, you don’t have an ID. You don’t have a driver’s license? That’s OK. We’ll give you an ID number. Well, now that you have an ID number, now you’re registered.  

Well, turn in your registration. Now we’re gonna give you a provisional ballot. 

Oh, you can’t read or write or you’re too zoomed out? Make a happy face, your mark, and I’ll be the witness. And here, you can’t read them?  

Here’s who you vote for. And give me the—here’s the registration and here’s the ballot, and I’m gonna take it in. And they did that all over Los Angeles to young people, minorities, and homeless people. 

And they all came in to such a degree. I don’t even think she won her own district’s vote. It was all over the city in specially designated areas that they had contacts as social workers, social work centers.  

And so, everybody said on the left, well, you’re a conspiracist. You think that, uh—show us the fraud. 

[President] Donald Trump walked out of an interview because they said, “Show us the fraud.”

They don’t understand what the fraud was. The fraud was the legal system that was legalized fraud.  

It was created to create fraud, but it was technically legal. So, in California, you don’t need a license to register to vote. If you’re an illegal alien, you can get a license. But you wouldn’t even need a license. 

You can have a credit card without your picture on it. You can have anything, and if you don’t have anything, you can be given an ID number. That’s the first thing. You can register and vote on the same day, and you won’t have to show any picture ID either to register or to vote. You don’t even have to read English. 

You don’t have to be able to write. You can make a mark. You can have somebody witness 1,000 times, the same person. Every single person who is registered gets a ballot. They don’t care if you’re dead. They don’t watch it carefully. They don’t care if you’ve moved. They don’t care if the names have been changed and you have two ballots. 

I mentioned that before. I have children who lived here. They went to college. They married, and for years, I got mail-in ballots. Mail-in ballots. Maybe it was William Hanson. Maybe he registered under Bill. Maybe he registered under Billy, and I took the ballots and threw them in [the trash]. All I would have had to do was make a happy face and have my friend witness it and mail it in, and it would have [counted]. 

And that happened. And then they said, illegal aliens don’t vote. And then the question was, well, why not? If you go to the disability, they do. If you go to unemployment, they do. If you go to Medi-Cal office, they do. If you go to legal services, they do. If you go to school, they do. You’re given a registration, and you can register without a driver’s license. 

But if you wanna be correct and get a driver’s license, you go into the DMV and say, “I want a driver’s license.” And you don’t have to be a US citizen. And so, then, once that happens, you get all these people that vote, and then you have people in these vote collection centers. And you don’t just turn them in. 

You get the troves, and then you postmark them, and they can come in for the next seven days, as long as they’re postmarked on or by election day. And then you see if you need them or not.  

Believe me, if she had been way ahead, she wouldn’t have done that. It wouldn’t have mattered. They wouldn’t have done that. 

They knew that she was third. They had polls. So, that’s vote harvesting. 

Then, if you go in and they say, “Well, the person didn’t sign their name. It doesn’t match the registration.” Well, if it’s 40%. So, Victor Davis Hanson, I write Victor, it’s 40%. That counts. But if it doesn’t count, you put it in the seven-day vote-curing pile. 

And then you call the candidate and say, we’ve got all these votes that came in. Do you want to cure this ballot? They open the thing up and they say … 

So, the candidates then go to extraordinary measures to find the people. And then they bring them in and they re-sign their name. And that’s why the ballots take so long, because they don’t come in for seven days. 

And then when you have all this fraud, guess what the rejection rate was in 2024 of all the ballots that were cast in California? 0.09%. Not even 1% was thrown out, just a fraction of a percent. 

In other words, they have all these people, and they didn’t do anything. They didn’t say, well, this person’s not registered. This person is registered on this name, but we have three ballots with this. This witness didn’t spell a name. There’s none of that. 

They just went ahead and did it. And that was designed to do what? That was designed to get a supermajority in the House, the Assembly, and the State Senate in California. Check. To get 15 years of straight Democrat governors. Check. To get a whole generation of liberal judges appointed by Jerry Brown and Gavin Newsom. Check. To get the congressional district, not 40%, the delegations of the 52, to get it down to seven. 13% of the state’s congresspeople are Republican, and the state votes about 38%, 40% Republican statewide. And so, it worked. And then finally, why did it work? What happened to the Pete Wilson group? What happened to [unintelligible]? 

The middle class, 300 to 500,000 a year, said, you know what? This is crazy. We pay the highest taxes, and we’re down like 45th in test scores. We pay the highest gas taxes, and we’re rated 49th in roads. High-speed rail is rusting. Palisades burns down. It’s not rebuilt. We passed a water bond. They took the money and blew up four dams. 

They didn’t build one dam. We did a gerrymandering, anti-gerrymandering bill, and we had five Democrats, five Republicans, four Independents. And guess what? The activists, the lawsuits, the racialists, they all went in and they warped the spirit, and they did that.  

And so, people said, I’ve had it. And they’re leaving, the conservative voter. 

And then we imported about 10 million people over 30 years that said, I love this country, but, you know, if I say I hate the country and it’s racist and it’s horrible, the more stuff I get, and the more I’m patronized, and the more I can’t be a racist. So, they created that dependent—and I saw that when I taught as a professor. 

I saw students that came in, and they were basically—I think I’ve told that story twice to this crowd. As a Latina, I don’t have to listen to “The Iliad.” It doesn’t—It’s not relevant to me. OK, I said, as a white person, your argument’s not relevant to me. And then I got—not she didn’t get chastised, I did. 

And then finally, the coup de grâce was we had $14 trillion in Silicon Valley, and that took the political nexus from the LA conservative places, once conservative, to the Bay Area. And we got Barbara Boxer, Dianne Feinstein, Nancy Pelosi, Gavin Newsom, Jerry Brown, Kamala Harris, Willie Brown. 

That’s what we got. And they ran the state into the ground with the money and backing of this new world juggernaut. And the whole bicoastal elite were the upper, upper Asian and white professional classes that said, I’m so wealthy now. I want to create heaven on earth. I want to get rid of fossil fuels. 

I want diversity. I want to defund the police. I want to do all this stuff. And I live in Brentwood, and I live in Carmel, and I live in Montecito, and I’m safe. I’m safe from the disasters I’m creating for the hoi polloi. 

Democrats’ Midterm Strategy? Pretend to Be Working Class Again

 

The Democratic Party has a lot of problems that have been widely discussed.  

One of the most notorious is, since the 2009 to 2017 presidencies of Barack Obama, and especially under Joe Biden, they have completely lost the so-called white working class.  

People have estimated that in 2024, Kamala Harris only gained about 30% of that demographic. They had put so much emphasis on each particular community.  

Every time a Democratic politician would address a crowd, he’d say, I’m for the LGBTQ+ something community, or, I’m for the Hispanic community. I’m for the Asian community.  

And with the onset of DEI in the post-George Floyd, the white working class felt that they were unwanted or not liked or actually despised. We heard again and again—white privilege, white supremacy, and there was a whole vocabulary of disparagement.

It started with Barack Obama when he wrote off his loss to Hillary Clinton in Pennsylvania because people he basically called clingers, mindless automatons who cling to their Bibles and guns, didn’t understand the sophistication of Barack Obama.  

Hillary Clinton went to West Virginia and said she wanted to shut down the coal industry as if all of those white middle-class and working-class coal miners didn’t matter.  

Joe Biden said they should learn coding, get rid of them, ban mining. 

Hillary, remember, called them deplorables and irredeemables. Joe Biden expanded that vocabulary with chumps, dregs, and most infamously, garbage.  

And of course, when any time a Democrat or liberal’s communications were leaked or found their way to the public, they were always anti-white working class.  

The CNN reporter who said he went to a Trump rally and had more teeth than everybody in the crowd, or Peter Strzok, the infamous FBI rogue agent, who said to his paramour, Lisa Page, texted her that he went to Walmart and he could smell them. 

So, they had a problem with them, and they can’t win without that rubric. It might be as—if you count women and men—it could be as much as, of the voting age, 30% to 50% of the electorate. 

So, now they think they’ve gotten smart, and they have a new approach. And the new approach is the old approach. They’re going to back off publicly from DEI in all of these primaries, publicly a little bit from open borders.  

But you know what will happen? Kamala Harris was for banning deportation. She was going to ban fracking, but she didn’t say that when she was running.  

Many of the candidates in the last election cycle—the governor of Virginia, the governor of New Jersey—had run as moderates, and then they showed their real selves once they were elected.  

But now the emphasis is on, we’ve got to find white working-class, authentically genuine people. And it’s very hard for them because they are not genuine people themselves, the Democratic Socialist Islamist New Party. 

So now all of a sudden, Pete Buttigieg is wearing a Caterpillar hat, grown a beard, Levi’s, as if he is going to represent the white working class. He’s the most sanctimonious, self-righteous, off-putting Democratic candidate who has zero chance to appeal to the white working class.  

They thought that maybe they could have the evangelical angle, and so they dug up James Talarico, and he is a Christian evangelical minister of sorts.  

And they thought, well, this will get a red state. He’s out of red state Texas. We’ll run him for Senate. He might be the next presidential or vice presidential candidate. Who knows? And of course, they didn’t check his background because the Democratic Party of today, as I said earlier, has a long record of despising traditional values and middle-class America. 

And lo and behold, James Talarico has disparaged, in social media and in speeches, the white working class. He’s called Texans illiberal, gun-toting. He said that Jesus was nonbinary. He said there were six or seven genders. He said all of these things. And he comes across as a Pete Buttigieg at a pulpit. 

They tried it again in Maine. They think they can knock off Susan Collins. Remember what their agenda is. They want to win the House, even if by one vote, because unlike the Republicans, they have mass solidarity.  

And as soon as they get the House in January of 2027, they will impeach Donald Trump. But they can’t do anything to Donald Trump unless they get 60 votes to convict him.  

And so, they really, in their delusional mindset, think they can do that, and one of the people they’ve targeted is moderate Susan Collins.  

There couldn’t be a more anti-MAGA Republican official. She’s as moderate as you can be in the Republican Party. She’s in a moderate purple state, and she’s a winning personality.  

Even Donald Trump, who gets very exasperated when she votes against him on key pieces of legislation, has a working relationship, and why not? She’s about as conservative as you can get in Maine, and she is a loyal Republican. 

So, they ran an ex-oyster farmer. That’s what we were told. But there are no really oyster farmers in Maine. That term is not even used in Maine. It’s really a nepo-baby, a man who grew up very affluent and went to one of the most, I don’t know, prestigious but extremely expensive prep schools in the nation at Hotchkiss until he was kicked out.  

He admirably served his country in Iraq when he had four tours. But in those tours, he was a disruptive figure. He put a Totenkopf Nazi symbol as a tattoo on his chest.  

He disparaged women on social media. He went on disreputable, predator-like social media communications posts. He rough-handled women. 

And when he was asked about all of this, Graham Platner said that he assured the Democrats on three areas that they could relax and he would be a viable candidate and beat Susan Collins.  

No. 1, he said he had no idea that 18 years ago when he put that Totenkopf tattoo on that it had any connection with the 3rd Panzer Division or SS Einsatzgruppen that ran the death camps.  

Two, he said he was never physical—he was kind of a bore with his many girlfriends—but he never physically assaulted them or manhandled them.  

And three, there would be no more revelations. 

Within hours, some of his girlfriends came forward, even though they were manipulated by The New York Times, who didn’t tell their full narratives, but they told enough that that was all a lie, that they knew that he bragged about his Totenkopf. He used the German word for death’s head, which is only used since World War II in the context of the SS.  

No. 2, he did manhandle. He grabbed a woman, pushed her in a room, locked her in all night, and he was very abusive.  

And No. 3, after he had assured people there would be no new revelation, there were these revelations, as aired in The New York Times. 

Graham Platner is no more middle class than Donald Trump is.  

The difference is Donald Trump is authentic. Whatever you think of Donald Trump, he wears his blue suit, his red tie, his orange makeup, his comb-over, his black Florsheim shoes, whether it’s 110 degrees or whether it’s 40 degrees, whether he’s in Tulare, California, or whether he’s watching mixed martial arts matches, or whether he’s talking with [Vladimir] Putin or [Jinjing] Xi.  

He is what he is. He doesn’t fake himself and act as if he’s a working-class man who had to get a veteran loan to buy his home when he actually was given a loan by his rich father. 

Everything about Graham Platner is artificial, but it displays this desire to appeal to a class that they despise.  

And I’ll just finish with good old Joe Biden from Scranton. Remember him? In the 2020 primary, Elizabeth Warren was radical, so was Bernie Sanders, so was Cory Booker, so was Pete Buttigieg. They were all going to lose against Donald Trump. They panicked.  

They got them all out by various backdoor mechanisms, the politicos, and then they refashioned Joe Biden into, “He’s good old Joe Biden. You remember him from the 1970s, the working guy from Scranton.” 

That was kind of hard to do because he was out in the public saying that he would ban fracking. He would stop the wall. He was going to open the border. He was 100% behind DEI.  

In fact, he was a waxen effigy that play acted as if he was middle class so that the Obama cadre could come back into power and push through, through the agency of Joe Biden, the most radical progressive agenda we’ve seen since the New Deal. 

Add it all up, there is no way in the world that this elite party of Antifa, BLM, bicoastal elites, billionaires, fake socialists, wealthy people like [Zohran] Mamdani or Hasan Piker can appeal to the working class, especially the white working class.  

So, expect more fake middle-class people like Graham Platner, James Talarico, and more Joe Bidens. And guess what? They’re all going to crash and burn just as these have because they’re not authentic. 

The Real Victims of Biden’s Border Crisis

 

Person 1: This Antifa punk, who was caught on video yelling at an [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] officer, said, “I’ll kill your whole effing family, your children, your wife. All dead. I have your face.”

This is why ICE agents wear masks, because when they don’t, they’re exposed.

This guy is Nicholas Matthew Scelfo. He’s 27. He’s from Brooklyn, and he’s been arrested by the FBI for threatening to kill a federal agent. Scelfo was a participant in the 2020 Black Lives Matter protests and, more recently, in “No Kings” protests.

He is an oddball, I think, Victor, but a violent one. Your thoughts on what our ICE officers endure?

Victor DavisPerson 2: Well, that’s what Voltaire said of Admiral [John] Byng. The British have a strange habit. Every once in a while, they hang an admiral, pour encourager les autres, so they can encourage the others.

They need to make an example of people who do that.

It’s very ironic because I’m sitting here in California, where [Gov.] Gavin Newsom will sign into law a new statute that makes it illegal for people like [Nick] Shirley to photograph, you know, just because that’s supposedly intimidating to immigrants or something.

Fowler: “Learing” center employees.

Hanson: Yeah, “Learing.”

And here, for months now, these ICE demonstrators have gotten into their faces. They’ve threatened them, and nothing. No repercussions. None.

Basically, we are in a situation in America where a federal officer is trying to rectify the lax enforcement of the past and return people to their home country who came here illegally, the majority of whom—60% to 70% of whom they’re after—are still criminals.

We have an active resistance that’s threatening them all the time, sometimes with violence.

And the reaction of blue-state America is, “We’re going to make it illegal to do something they used to celebrate on ‘60 Minutes.’”

Remember the ambush interview where all of a sudden Dan Rather would pop out of a doorway when he’d see a corporate CEO walk by, then stick a camera in his face and a microphone and say, “Did you or did you not know about that carcinogen in your assembly?”

That’s what they did all the time, and the Left thought this was the greatest thing in the world.

But the Left is adolescent, so anything they feel adds to their power and influence—any means necessary—is OK. Then, when it’s used against them, they get paranoid.

They’re all mad at E. JJacean Carroll now because everybody knew she’d lied under oath when she said Reid Hoffman didn’t fund her lawsuit. That was a complete lie. He funded almost all of it.

Now they’ve decided to do something nobody does: enforce the perjury law.

And they say, “Oh, this is lawfare. This is vindictive.”

Her whole case was a bill of attainder that allowed her to have a suspension of the sexual harassment statute for one year, written specifically for her, so she could get [President] Donald Trump.

So, it’s really demoralizing to see what these young punks do.

I said to Sami the other day that 45% of them, Jack, are Mexican American middle-class people.

And nobody in the Mexican American community is doxing them or exposing them.

We’re talking about—

Fowler: The ICE officers.

Hanson: The ICE officers. Yeah.

They are celebrated because when 12 million illegal aliens come across the southern border, they do not go to Martha’s Vineyard. They do not go to Atherton. They do not go to Palm Beach.

We know they don’t go to Martha’s Vineyard. We know they don’t go to Nantucket.

They go to Hispanic communities like mine.

The result is that when you go to the emergency room, you can’t get served. Or when you take your mom for dialysis, she can’t get served.

Or you go to the store, and somebody is not speaking Spanish, they’re speaking an Indigenous dialect, and no one knows what to do.

Or you have truck drivers who can’t read English and are killing people with fake licenses. There was no requirement they had to meet to get them.

So, that’s the problem.

This is a class issue.

These are wealthy, upscale young punks and middle-aged retirees, mostly from the white and Asian elite of this country. They go out as a sort of sporting event, then disparage, slur, smear, and try to attack largely middle-class Mexican American officers.

No one talks about that, but that’s the real subtext of the entire thing.

Fowler: This is interesting on the elitist side.

I’m looking right now at a post on X from someone called “I Meme Therefore I Am,” who writes, “One of the left extremists who was arrested for kicking and biting ICE agents in New Jersey was previously charged with sexual abuse of children related to the dissemination and possession of child pornography.”

This character’s name is Brendan Geyer, and he graduated from Madison High School in New Jersey.

I’m going to tell you something, Victor. If you wanted to buy a house in Madison, New Jersey, you’d better have a couple million dollars.

These are hugely elite upbringings, and this was a very violent and ideological young man.

Hanson: That’s what no one talks about in this country.

There is something deeply troubling and disturbing about this postmodern culture that’s grown up in the bicoastal elite communities, where pampered white kids go to schools like Stanford, Harvard, Princeton, Yale, and the rest.

They get indoctrinated for four years, and they don’t know anything.

They don’t learn classical languages. They don’t know modern languages. They don’t know philosophy. They don’t know science or math.

They take therapeutic sociology and psychology, then become fodder for all these causes.

They’re so sanctimonious and self-righteous because they’re wealthy and entitled. Nobody in their entire lives has dared to bother them.

They have security patrols in their neighborhoods. They’re like little sheltered hothouse plants, and we’re supposed to take them seriously.

That is really the basis of the Democratic Party now. It is a DEI, socialist, Islamist, elitist coalition.

I think we need to talk more in those terms. These are class snobs.

They keep talking about oppression.

[New York City Mayor Zohran] Mamdani is a good example. He talks about whiter neighborhoods and all these oppressors.

He came from the 1% of Uganda. One percent in Uganda are of Indian ethnic background.

According to his own definition and the people around him, he is a settler colonialist.

I don’t believe that’s true, but they would say it’s true.

He grew up in affluence, came over here, and his parents gained even greater affluence.

He’s never really held a serious job outside of government, a board position, or serving as an assemblyman for a term.

He’s got all these pie-in-the-sky social ideas, and he’s got these racialist ideas.

He does not like Jews. That’s very clear.

He does not like white people, or he wouldn’t say, “I’m going to go after the nicer, whiter neighborhoods.”

When you talk like that, it’s a stark revelation of your soul.

That’s a very disturbing demographic—these very affluent left-wing people who are so self-righteous.

And you know what’s weird about it?

They transfer their wealth and privilege into their ideology. So they think you have to listen to them.

Black Americans don’t know what’s good for them unless they listen to Barack Obama, who can instruct them about why they can’t vote for anybody but Kamala Harris and why these people are all misled.

That arrogance comes from the idea that they’ve always had affluence, they’ve always been privileged, and they’ve always expected people to listen to them.

Why Britain’s ‘DEI Police’ Watched a 19-Year-Old Boy Die in Front of Their Eyes

 

To remind everybody what happened, we had a 19-year-old who had a confrontation with a 23-year-old immigrant, [a] Sikh from India. We don’t really know the particulars except the Sikh person was carrying a “ceremonial sword,” which is apparently allowed under DEI auspices because he has a religious exemption, but it was a pretty big blade.

He stabbed this 19-year-old white male repeatedly. Then his brother called the police and said the perpetrator was a victim of racism. The police came to the scene. The perpetrator said he had a little mark, which I couldn’t even see, and that this racist on the ground had attacked him and he had only defended himself.

That was all they needed.

So, then, the DEI police, and that’s what I’m going to use because that’s the thematic narrative, went to the anti-DEI person who was dying with a deep wound to the chest. His lungs were filling up with blood. I can relate to that because I had the same experience with three pulmonary arteries that were cut or broke apart, and I had two to three liters immediately in my lung cavity.

That’s not a good feeling when you can’t breathe and you’ll die with that blood in your cavity. They have to suck it all out.

So, he was there alive, and the police saw that. He was lying down, and they pulled on him to prop him up. He said, “I’m dying. I can’t breathe.” They completely ignored him, kept the cuffs on, and he literally bled to death in front of them.

They were just clueless and more worried about the perpetrator. Then they went home and hid the murder weapon. His mother did.

They found out the particulars of the assault and came back. The brother, I don’t think, has been arrested, even though he was the one who called in with the fake narrative that it was a matter of white racism, which really killed the kid.

That was what prepped the police.

In their defense, they knew that if they had arrested the Sikh perpetrator, they probably would have lost their jobs.

Then the family hid it, and the Sikh leader in the community said, “Oh, this is terrible. People are blaming us. We’re victims of hate now.”

My answer to him is: Don’t identify an individual as a collective unless you want to be a collective.

There was a member of your Sikh community who killed a person and murdered him. He is a murderer. He was convicted. Then there was another member of that Sikh community, a member of that family, who lied to a police officer.

That’s a felony. Then they hid the weapon. They were accessories after the fact. That’s a felony.

All you have to do as a self-proclaimed Sikh leader is say the following: “This does not represent the Sikh community. We are a group of individuals, and any time we find one of the members of our community has acted antithetical to our values, we condemn it most heartedly.”

That’s all he had to say.

Instead, he turned around and said, “Well, the poor Sikh community is now getting … ” If you’re going to be a collective, then people are going to say, “Well, this is what you do.” If you want to be individuals, then act like individuals.

The same thing is true here in the United States. No one has been more supportive of the Sikh community than I have, both on this broadcast and in person.

Sometimes I kid my Sikh friends at one of the largest temples that’s 2 miles from my house. I’ve talked about them many times.

Yes, they’re all good friends. They’re wonderful people. They’re wonderful citizens. I don’t even think I should use the term “wonderful people.” They’re wonderful individuals that I know.

One of the most admirable is Simon Siyodi. He’s a good friend of mine. I like him enormously.

But my point is this. I teased him. I said, “If you’re going to have this huge Sikh temple with these flags of the Sikh nation, why don’t you at least put an American flag on your temple?” Sometimes I’ve seen it, sometimes I haven’t.

When these accidents were overwhelmingly perpetrated by illegal aliens, and here in California, overwhelmingly the Sikh drivers did not know English, did not take the regular test, and were given exemptions.

There was an attempt by federal authorities to say those licenses, which were fraudulently issued and led to some deaths of innocent people, would not be valid in other states.

The Sikh community then said, “We want a letter in support.”

That was the same idea. Why would you do that? Why wouldn’t you say, “These members of the Sikh community who entered the United States illegally, resided illegally, got driver’s licenses under fraudulent circumstances, acted recklessly, and killed people through their recklessness, we condemn these people. They’re not representative of our community.”

They didn’t do that.

I think that’s another sign that it’s going to hurt the community and hurt the community terribly.

Yes, I’m on a working farm, and there’s a big machine that is very important to finish.

The other thing, very quickly, Jack, is that this is the anti-George Floyd scenario.

Here we have parallel tracks. Here is a 19-year-old without a record who was minding his own business.

Here is George Floyd, a career felon who broke into a home, put a knife at a pregnant woman’s belly, and was convicted. In the process of encountering the police, he was:

A) Committing a felony by passing counterfeit currency.

B) Committing a felony by resisting arrest.

C) Committing a misdemeanor by being under the influence of fentanyl.

The police intervened in both cases.

In the case of George Floyd, they used an approved police maneuver to subdue him. Due to his ongoing COVID-19 condition, his fentanyl intoxication, a jury found Officer [Derek] Chauvin’s use of his knee—he passed out and said he couldn’t breathe.

At that point, they called an ambulance. The ambulance came, took him to the hospital, and he died.

Officer Chauvin was given a murder charge, convicted, and has since been attacked in prison, as I understand it.

The country’s reaction to that was four months of looting, arson, violence, 35 people killed, 1,500 officers injured, $2 billion in damage, courthouses burned, precincts burned, churches burned, and 14,000 people arrested.

That day almost ruined the universities because afterward they dropped the SAT and standards for admissions.

Now, of course, you see left-wing faculty saying, “Please bring back the SAT. The students are too poor to do the work. We don’t know what we’re going to do.”

Stanford said the same thing.

“We can’t water down the curriculum anymore because the graduates cannot get the type of jobs the Stanford brand would ensure them because employers caught on to us.”

It changed everything. It changed the military with DEI. It changed popular culture with critical race theory. It started the defund-the-police movement.

All from that incident.

In Britain, there will be no mass arson, riots, nothing.

The murderer was convicted.

I hope the members of the family who either hid the weapon or gave fraudulent information to the police will be charged and held accountable.

I hope the Sikh community will say, “These people do not represent our values and are not really members in good standing of our community. We want to integrate and assimilate into British culture.”

Explaining Britain’s ‘Sickly Reversed’ George Floyd Moment

 

There was a murder in Britain in the town of Hampshire that’s got worldwide news because it’s kind of iconic of the whole problem of immigration and DEI in the Western world.

The facts are not in dispute. A young man who was a student, Henry Nowak, was walking and encountered another, I think, young person.

I think he was twenty-three. Vickrum Digwa, who was a Sikh immigrant, either first or second generation, it wasn’t specified. And apparently, they exchanged words, and they had some confrontation. We’ll wait to see what surveillance cameras show. But Mr. Digwa pulled out his ceremonial Sikh sword and used it as a weapon and stabbed Mr. Nowak repeatedly, apparently fatally, in the chest.

And when police arrived, Mr. Nowak was on the ground bleeding out, clearly bleeding out and muttering, “I’m dying.”

What was the reaction of the police? Did they render immediate first aid and restrain Mr. Digwa? No. No. What they did was they—Mr. Digwa then made up a lie, and we’ll get to that later, that he had been a victim of racism, that Mr. Nowak had exchanged words that were racial in nature to him that prompted the stabbing.

So, what did the police do? They put handcuffs on the dying young Mr. Nowak. And of course, he died with the handcuffs without any medical attention at all.

Then, Mr. Digwa apparently went back to his home, and his mother, and I guess members of his family or somebody, he and his mother then hid the murder weapon in the house.

And at some point, the police finally caught on after Mr. Nowak died, or they had surveillance, or they had witnesses, that there had been no racial taunts, that that was a complete lie.

And they had watched and, in some ways, abetted the death of Mr. Nowak, who was a white male and was on the wrong side of the oppressor-oppressed binary, apparently.

What are we gonna make of this British insanity?

We’ve had our version here, too. You know, in a very strange way, it is sort of a George Floyd in a really sick reversal.

Mr. Nowak, unlike George Floyd, was not a career criminal. He was not being handcuffed because he was passing counterfeit currency and high on fentanyl and resisting arrest as Mr. Floyd was.

He was dying. He was bleeding out. It’s a little easier to see someone as in extremis when they say, “I’m dying,” and there’s a pool of blood around them than Mr. Floyd when he said, “I can’t breathe.” That’s not to excuse Mr. [Derek] Chauvin necessarily.

But it’s far more egregious for police to handcuff a man bleeding on the ground than to use a standard approved measure to restrain a suspect that was resisting arrest that went south when he stopped breathing.

More importantly, what was the reaction of the public in these two different cases? In the case of George Floyd, you had a career criminal committing a felony, passing counterfeit currency, actively resisting arrest and under the influence of drugs, who tragically died when Officer Chauvin put a knee on his neck, which arguably had been a protocol that had been approved in a number of police departments in the United States.

What was the reaction? The United States blew up for four months. Four months, 2 billion dollars’ worth of damage, 35 people killed, 1,500 officers injured, arson, federal courthouses torched, police precinct torched, iconic church torched, luminaries like Kamala Harris bragging that this will not stop.

These demonstrations will go on. They should go on, blah, blah, blah, blah. What was the reaction in Britain to Mr. Nowak? Silence.

What can we learn from all this? We’ve talked about the problems with DEI. DEI not only destroys meritocracy and promotes people who did not earn that admission or that hiring based on widely accepted criteria that everybody accepts.

We’re an equal opportunity Western civilization. We are not a mandated equality of result, at least we weren’t until recently.

But there’s another wrinkle to DEI. Once a person is informally or formally, identified as a victim or the oppressed, that serves as a get out of jail card. That is the end of deterrence.

They feel if they got into the university with a SAT score that’s two hundred points lower than someone else, then when they take a class and they don’t do well, the same type of exemptions will apply on and on and on.

And obviously, Mr. Digwa felt that in Britain today, the fact that he was an immigrant of color gave him an exemption to lie, to take a knife out.

Of course, if you have a visible knife in Great Britain It’s a felony. It’s against the law, but an exemption is given because of his, I don’t know, immigration status or for religious reasons.

But he felt that he could use that as a weapon with impunity. He could stab somebody, then he could hit the button word racism, and that would direct the police away from him, the perpetrator, to the dying victim, to the extent they’d even put cuffs, not one bandage, no mouth-to-mouth recitation, nothing.

All they did was handcuff and make his plight worse, and he bled out.

DEI is a very deadly, dangerous phenomenon. Once you identify a group of people not by active oppression but by the color of their skin, and you say no matter what their class is, and I would say the Sikh community in Europe, but especially in the United States, is, as a member of the Indian diaspora, the most affluent immigrant group in the United States right now.

Mr. [Zohran] Mamdani found that out when he said he was going to go after whiter neighborhoods and people pointed out that he is more exclusive if he’s going to talk in collective terms and so-called white people.

It’s also kind of tragic that the Sikh community has been one of the most hardworking, law-abiding communities of immigrants in America and in Europe.

And they’ve had a tendency to look at themselves as individuals, not as collectives. But it would be a shame if the Sikh community did not condemn members of their own community if they’re going to talk in collective terms.

They’re under no obligation to single out Mr. Digwa in Britain. But if they talk about the Sikh community, then they are, and they had.

One of the Sikh leaders in Great Britain said that now the Sikhs were subject to hate crimes. And so, he was trying to take the onus away from the murderer to now his community is victimized.

Wouldn’t it have been better for the Sikh leader to come out and say, “Mr. Digwa is not representative of our community.

“We don’t take religious objects and use them as weapons to kill somebody. And when we kill somebody, we don’t lie about it to the police and are responsible that for his plight and falsely make up charges of racism. Much less do we aid and abet a murderer by hiding the murder weapon. We don’t do that.”

Again, they’re under no compunction to say that. But once you collectively say the Sikh community is suffering from people’s threats, then you live and die with collectivism.

And if it’s going to be that you’re collectively victims, then you might want to say that you want to separate yourself as a collective from a murder and people who abetted that murder.

The same thing is happening in the United States. Again, the Sikh community, and I have neighbors and some of my closest friends, they’re one of the most, industrious and hardworking immigrant communities there is.

Recently, though, we had an epidemic of Sikh illegal alien truck drivers. Many of them were caught without valid driver’s license or with driver’s license that were really not legitimate because they did not know the English language, and there was a lot of high-profile, horrendous, catastrophic accidents where they were driving semis and killed innocent drivers.

Sikh community is no obligation to defend them or to say … but once they think they’re going to talk collectively, and they did. They wanted petitions. They said, “This is unfair.”

Once you do that, then you lose that, that moral high ground. It would have been much wiser for people in the Sikh community to say, “We are the most law-abiding immigrant community.

“We do not talk about ourselves in collective terms. We are individuals. These individuals broke U.S. law. They committed a crime, criminal act, by coming into this country illegally, and they were not qualified to drive, semi-trucks in the manner that they did or to drive them at all, and we condemn that.

“They’re not representative of the values of the Sikh community.”

That message did not get out like that. And so it would be tragic if other ethnic groups have looked at the progression of DEI and the exemptions and deterrence that allows to jump on that DEI wagon.

Why would it be tragic? Because public opinion is moving in the opposite direction.

People are tired of victim, victim, victim, victimizer, victimizer, victimizer. They want to go back to individual people and not collectives.

movies seen (letterboxd Diary 2026 edition)

 

What Did Democrats Say in Their 192-Page Autopsy?

 

The Democrats have an autopsy report that was just released that supposedly would explain why they lost the 2024 election. They were shocked. Remember the NPR poll, for example, on the eve of the election, said that Kamala Harris was beyond the margin of error. 

In other words, she was ahead by more than three points just before the balloting began. Remember the Iowa poll that said that Kamala Harris was going to win by three points, and she lost by eight or nine, I think. So, the point is, they were shocked, and they wanted to know what happened. And they should want to know what happened because they had more money. 

She raised a billion dollars. If you look at the aggregate Biden-Harris total campaign chest, they outraised Donald Trump by a billion dollars. Donald Trump was also, for much of 2022, 2023, and 2024, sidelined off the campaign trail dealing with five criminal and civil lawfare suits. So, they thought they should have won. 

And that’s in addition to the media. You remember the debate with JD Vance and Tim Walz and Joe Biden and Kamala Harris debates with Donald Trump. The moderators were more or less on the side of the Democrats. 

 So, they had all these advantages, support, and they lost. So they wanted to know why. Well, you and I know why they did. 

Because they had an agenda, and what was that agenda? The trans issue, the open borders issue, the 10 to 12 million illegal aliens issue, the 500,000 criminals who came across issue, the highest urban crime rates in a generation issue, the war on fossil fuels issue, the 9.2% inflation in 2022 under Biden and, in the aggregate, on key staples, maybe a 20% or 30% rise in prices, the catastrophe in Afghanistan, the sense of appeasement that allowed [Vladimir] Putin to think he could go into Ukraine. 

I could go on. Two theater wars, one in Ukraine, one in the Middle East, etc., etc., etc.  

They didn’t mention any of that. They didn’t mention any of that because that is the agenda, the platform, the policies of the new Democratic Party. They feel that the Green New Deal is great and we should war on fossil fuels, cut back on gas and oil production. 

They believe that there are three sexes and that biological men have a perfect right to dress in girls’ dressing rooms or compete in women’s sports.  

They believe the border should be open. They believe that 10 or 12 million illegal aliens wasn’t enough. They believe that it was good to get out of Afghanistan the way we did. 

They didn’t criticize that. They believe in DEI and racial preferences. So, they weren’t going to say that that agenda, none of it , which is supported by the American people, was the undoing.  

They also didn’t say that the party that talks about democracy and that Trump is a dictator didn’t talk about the manner in which Joe Biden, who won 14 million votes in the primaries, was forced out by a bunch of backroom insider politicos. 

One day he was there, one day he was forced off the ticket, and almost within 24 hours, Kamala Harris was coronated as the nominee. Everybody came in lockstep, endorsed her. The vote at the convention a few weeks later was pro forma. And guess what? She had run in 2020 against Biden and had not gotten one delegate. 

So that was an entire coup, so to speak, that was contrary to the perception of the Democrats that they were the party of democracy. They weren’t going to talk about it being far left.  

So, what did they say in this 192-page, poorly written report? It was written by Mr. [Paul] Rivera, who’s a politico analyst, an activist, an analyst, a friend of Ken Martin’s who did it. 

The report has misspelled words. It’s kind of incoherent. There are no footnotes. He didn’t want to release it, but he was forced to because he had earlier made a promise that he would. Those were the admissions. Well, what was the commission? Well, it was that you didn’t attack Donald Trump hard enough. They attacked him all the time. 

They called him a fascist. They called him a liar. They called him a dictator. But they had to say that.  

And then, second of all, they said that they didn’t properly prepare Kamala Harris. They did prepare Kamala Harris. They kept her out of reach from media and the public for 30 or 40 days. They did all they could to coach her. 

They had private planes for her staff. They had wardrobe consultants. They had speech consultants. They had Hollywood producers advise [her]—they had everybody. But they couldn’t do it, not because they didn’t try, because Kamala Harris was one of the most inept candidates that we have seen in modern political history. 

Any time that she got on the stage and she started talking about metaphysics, time, being, thought, her eyes would sort of go into a corkscrew and “Twilight Zone” music would come on, and she was just, you know, coconut palms and being and what could be and all.  

And it was just embarrassing. It was so embarrassing that people thought she was intoxicated because her sentences, her paragraphs, her grammar, her syntax made no sense. 

So, it wasn’t that they didn’t prepare her; it’s that they handed a nomination to someone who was selected after the aftermath of George Floyd on the basis of her gender and race, and she had nothing, nothing in her past that would show that she was qualified.  

She did have one thing. She was the most left-wing senator based on her voting record, to the left of Bernie Sanders, in the entire U.S. Senate. 

So what would an accurate autopsy say? The accurate autopsy would say our message is too far left and nobody wants it, so we have to disguise it. 

And then it could say, look what Joe Biden did. He got elected, and he turned out to be the most far-left president since FDR. 

Now, how did we do that? We did that—forget about the balloting and elections and changing the voting laws and all the things that Molly Ball bragged about in her Time essays of cabals and conspiracies. 

They did it because Joe Biden served as a waxen effigy. Old Joe Biden from Scranton, the good guy, the union guy, the lunch-bucket guy. It was all a myth. And then the Obama team came in and used him as sort of a puppet, pulled the strings, and then rushed through this agenda. And it took four years for people to catch on to what was happening. 

This guy was non compos mentis, and they couldn’t believe it, that he was president, but it served a purpose. And a lot of candidates saw that. [Abigail] Spanberger in Virginia saw that. And it looks like some of the Democrats running for the mayorship and the governorship in California see that. 

In other words, they feign like they’re moderates. They suggest they are moderates during the campaign, and then when they’re elected, they have the socialist redistributionist agenda.  

So, in conclusion, if the autopsy wanted to be accurate, it would have done this. We lost the 2024 campaign because we had a radical agenda that reflects the Jacobin neo-socialism of the new party. 

For us to get elected on a national basis, we have to hide that agenda. We have to hide that agenda, lie to the people, act like we’re moderates, say we’re for fracking, close the border, say we are not objecting to deportation, tough on crime, don’t defund the police—all of that Kamala Harris was not able to do. 

She may have tried here and there, but she did not modify or hide or mask or disguise that agenda with a veneer of moderation. 

Second of all, she should have never been nominated. She was completely unqualified to be a presidential candidate. She had run in 2020. She was the weakest of eight or 10 candidates. 

She dropped out before the Iowa and New Hampshire caucuses, and she didn’t get a single delegate. That should have told them something.  

And number three, Joe Biden had a terrible record. Terrible record. And the Democrats did everything they could to demonize Donald Trump, to make the campaign about Donald Trump, to keep Kamala Harris out of reach, to hide her so people wouldn’t find out how crazy and inept she was. 

That was not enough.  

And so, all they had to do was say we can’t change our message; it’s toxic; let’s hide it. We can’t get good candidates, and we anoint them, and that was another problem. So we need a better candidate that can better mask and disguise this radical socialist agenda that we have until he or she is elected president. 

That would have been honest.