Paxton Has Problems—but Texas Democrats Have Bigger Ones

 

person 1: Well, let’s turn to [President Donald] Trump. We know that he’s planning on barnstorming the country for some of the candidates and such. So I was wondering what you made of [Texas Attorney General] Ken Paxton, who said that that convention that he had in Dallas, Texas, dragged down his numbers. It’s dragged everybody’s numbers down.

Ken Paxton was his man. Who? I mean, they caught him on a mic—or he didn’t say it formally.

person 2: He denied that.

But he shouldn’t have told anybody that. Look, [Sen.] John Cornyn would have won that election, and he was a RINO. And he’s very embittered, like [Sen.] Thom Tillis is in [North] Carolina. And he voted with Trump about 85% of the time, right?

But on the key issues, like the SAVE Act and those, he wasn’t with Trump, so Trump got mad. Paxton had a, what’s the word, colorful record, personal and professional. And he was not, as Trump said, a charismatic guy. But Trump endorsed him with the idea that Texas is not going to vote for a vegetarian when they’re famous for beef.

They’re not going to vote for a green nut when they’re famous for oil. They’re not going to vote for “Jesus is nonbinary” when it’s an evangelical state. So, I think that Paxton will win, but he’s a very weak candidate, I’ll be candid with you. And he doesn’t come across well, and they haven’t been campaigning.

[State Rep. James] Talarico is slimy and unctuous and smooth. He’s oily, and he’s taking his, “I never said that. That was a moment of exuberance.” Then every time you catch him in his real self, somebody ambushes him and says, “Who’s your favorite drag dancer, trans drag dancer?”

“Oh, yeah.”

And he’s like, “Uh-oh, I just gave a name as if I know all of them.”

So, he’s running as something he’s not. And when he gets elected, if he were to do that, he would go back to his socialist, crazy roots, just like [Abdul] El-Sayed and everybody else.

person 1: Yeah, as the reverend at his church got caught on a mic saying—

person 2: You know what I’m most scared about right now?

person 1: What?

person 2: We just did some videos for “person 2: In a Few Words” about how the economy was booming. This was before The Wall Street Journal. I had so many comments on X and emails saying, “You’re just a sycophant. You know, come on, Victor, just admit that we’re in a depression. Don’t just give us this rah-rah. The economy’s horrible.”

Nobody believes that. I wrote an article today, I mentioned on our website, about the ’92 election. The economy was strong. Not as strong as now, but it wasn’t bad, like [Bill] Clinton and [Al] Gore said. But they won on that.

So, I’m afraid that because we have not been talking about the economy, we haven’t explained the affordability issue: that it was 20% under [President Joe] Biden, 5.1% a year, and the only way you can get rid of 20% inflation over his tenure would have been a recession. And we’re not going to do that. And it was 30% for vehicles, fuels and staples.

So, the only way you can get out of those high prices is to cut the annual rate of inflation, which Trump did the first year by half, and raise wages, purchasing power, which he did.

This year it’s complicated, but I’m afraid that with all this foreign investment and all this AI, and the end of the Iran conflict soon, and the crashing of oil prices, and this boom that we see, that it’s going to happen after they take the House. And they’re going to say, “See, you voted for us, and we got the price of oil down.”

And that’s something everybody should watch. If anybody votes and believes them that they have any ability or desire to lower prices, you’re sorely mistaken. These are Islamists and socialists. They have bigger fish to fry than us. They want to change the United States into a socialist Cuba.

person 1: Yeah. And we looked at some of those stories in Seattle and California, where our socialist states are destroying it, especially with the homeless and fraud.

person 2: If they were honest, they should say this: “If you elect us, we can do for the United States what we’ve done in California, Oregon, Washington, Illinois, New York, and Minnesota. And we can make every city in the United States look exactly like Los Angeles, San Francisco, Portland, Seattle, Minneapolis, Chicago, and New York if you’ll just vote for us.

“That’s our plan because these are blue states and blue cities, and it’s a wonderful place, so vote for us.”

That’s what they’re running on. We’re going to make California nationwide.

person 1: And you’ll applaud us when we get one crosswalk painted in seven months, just like Nithya Raman did.

person 2: We get Stonehenge.

And we get Stonehenge. I have a reader, Gary. I never give his last name, so I don’t want to embarrass him. But I had said on this program, “What do you do with Stonehenge?” Right? Not one foot of track, but 170 miles, 78 miles or something, from Bakersfield to Merced.

And he—I guess he Photoshopped it or he got it—and, well, why not have a Western pedestrian trail? Because he’s a landscaper guy, and he had these beautiful bridges over railroad tracks, like from Fresno to Bakersfield.

And I thought about it. I thought, “Wow, that’s a brilliant idea.” Then I was reminded of that little animal walk in LA, where they built a bridge so the wolves or somebody could not—

And it’s been taking millions of dollars. They can’t finish it. But if they would turn it loose to a guy like Gary, and he could just landscape the whole thing as a private enterprise guy, then you could walk from Bakersfield.

Of course, you’d have to put a police station every 5 miles because of California’s crime rate. And, you know, you’d have to say, “If you rob somebody, it’s not $950 or a get-out-of-jail-free card.”

person 1: Yeah. Well, let’s look at states that are doing things, or just take a moment. I don’t know if you have something to say about this, but [Gov.] Ron DeSantis in Florida has designated CAIR, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the Muslim Brotherhood, and Antifa as terrorist organizations.

So, woo-hoo for Florida, I’d say.

person 2: He’s very good. And I don’t know who got the inspiration from whom, but Donald Trump announced that last month there were zero Muslim, Islamic people coming in as refugees. That’s how they come in.

Basically, the argument is, “We destroyed our country with Islamism, and I want to go to a Western country and destroy it so it looks like the destroyed country that I left. So I want to come to France or Britain, the United States, and wave my Palestinian flag or my Iraqi flag or my Syrian flag or my Iranian flag because I’m a refugee. But I don’t want to integrate. I don’t want to assimilate. I do not want to acculturate.”

And so, Donald Trump—they’re really angry at him. “This is so—this is terrible.” But he just said, “We don’t have to let anybody—”

And we’re not going to let in people—he didn’t say Muslim. He said people from these countries. They’re not going to come in.

And when you look at what they’re saying, why would you want somebody like [Rep.] Ilhan Omar to come in, whose father was a colonel in a genocidal army under Siad Barre?

Why would you want [Zohran] Mamdani, who was a settler colonialist in Uganda, where the community was 0.01%, and they own 60% of the GDP?

And he didn’t say much about that [Yoweri] Museveni, or whatever his name is, the president of Uganda, has been there for 40 years without a free election. God, can you imagine? He’s a dual citizen. He’s a citizen of Uganda right now.

Why doesn’t he say, “Well, I want to arrest Benjamin Netanyahu, but because I have dual loyalties, I’m also a citizen of Uganda, I want to arrest the Ugandan delegation because they’re dictatorships.

“But then, on the other hand, my family has a two-acre estate with a view of Lake Victoria, so we have to get along to get along.”

Or why doesn’t Hasan Piker—you know, he said he hates the United—

“Gosh, I hate the United States. You guys deserve 9/11.”

Why don’t you just stay home? We don’t want you or any of your friends over here.

person 1: Yeah. Wearing—what was that? A maid’s dress? Hasan Piker was dressed up in a maid’s dress this week for his podcast.

person 2: Because he has an affectation for transvestism.

person 1: Yeah, cross-dressing.

person 2: Cross-dressing.

The Truth About Oct. 7 Massacre, 3 Years Later

 

This week marks the third anniversary of the Oct. 7 slaughter of Israelis, civilians, some people in the [Israel Defense Forces], and foreign residents. … Women, men, children, young adults, some of them attending a rock concert. 

Remember the facts. Without warning, over 4,000 terrorists from Hamas stormed in over the fence, I can’t call it a wall, it looks to me more like a fence, stormed in and waged a surprise attack against Israel. They were accompanied by 200 civilians that tagged along on the expectation that the terrorists would be killing, wounding, torturing, taking hostages, and the civilians could rape, mutilate, and steal, and bring loot, and all of that was accomplished. 

We also forget that there was another thousand terrorists who, in support of this invasion, had launched 4,300 rockets into civilian centers. In fact, that would be the first salvo, which in the next few days would account for a total of 13,000 rockets. Remember, 13,000 rockets all fired at Israeli civilian centers. They attacked 23 different little hamlets. Almost 1,200 died. They took 251 hostages. They got in 14 miles, 14 miles inside 1948 Israel. 

So, what are the facts about why did they do this?  

Well, we can ask that question because there had not been an Israeli inside Gaza since 2006, for almost, at the time of the assault, 17, 18 years. Israel was supplying the majority of the water, fuel, and power for Gaza even though they had left and turned it over to them.  

Gaza had staged one election, in the words of the great Muslim scholar Bernard Lewis, “One election, one time.” They had killed off many of the architects of the opposition. They had thrown Palestinian Authority activists off buildings. They had eliminated them. They never held another election. They tortured or killed internal dissidents. 

In this period in which Hamas had complete autonomy over Gaza, they received somewhere between $45 and $50 billion in aid, roughly from 2006 to the present day. Forty to 50 billion. That would have allowed this choice piece of Mediterranean real estate to build luxury hotels, to bring in European and Gulf advisers, and in other words, to create a Qatar or an Oman or a Dubai.  

They didn’t want to do that. They diverted about $1 billion to $2 billion and built the largest labyrinth of tunnels probably in the world, not subways, but I mean military tunnels, about 500 miles. It cost them 6,000 tons of cement, 2,000 tons of metal. The entries and the exits were placed under schools, mosques, and hospitals, forcing the Israelis to attack those exits and entries and then incur collateral damage. 

Remember one other thing: They were prepared to send more terrorists and more soldiers deeper into Israel if the IDF had not responded belatedly, though they did. They did respond and stop them. They confiscated over 10,000 weapons. Where those weapons came from, you can imagine, but most of them were from Iran or China. 

I want to leave you with a couple of questions. Number one, would there have been this cry of genocide, this hatred of Israel? It was always there, but would there have been an American action, all of the things about Iran, had they just not attacked on Oct. 7?  

What if Hamas had said the following: “We have a peace deal with Israel. We’re going to create our own nation here. We have twenty thousand workers inside Israel at competitive wages worldwide. We’re going to use that revenue and that expertise that they’re going to gain by working with Israelis to create a successful autonomous nation. We’re gonna show the Palestinian Authority on the West Bank that we can be preeminent in the Middle East.” 

They didn’t do that. Instead, they wanted to slaughter Jews, men, women, children, mutilate, behead, rape, torture, take hostages. 

I have another second question. What was Israel supposed to do after this had happened, given that they had an overwhelming military that could dominate almost any country? I shouldn’t say almost every country in the Middle East. With this enormous military power and this egregious assault on Israel, it was really one of the few assaults ever conducted inside 1948 Israel.  

What were they supposed to do? Were they supposed to say to the Hamas leadership that was gloating in the global media, “Would you please turn over the architects who planned this, the forty or fifty people?” They did. Did they say, “We would like all the perpetrators as well”? They did. Did they say, “We would like you to return all 251 hostages”? They did. Did they say, “We would like you to stop sending rockets, especially the rockets, all of them, intended to kill our own civilians”? They did. 

And what was the Hamas reaction? Jubilation. Jubilation. This was the high point of Iranian subsidies. They were getting billions of dollars from international relief organizations, and the Biden administration had refunded them through the U.N. They were getting weapons from China. They had help and solidarity from Hezbollah and the Houthis. They were at a crescendo of pride and arrogance. 

What did Israel do? They waited three weeks before invading. And what was the reaction to that patience and that demand that this could be resolved peaceably if they would turn over all the perpetrators and release the hostages? It was absolute hatred and contempt. 

I saw it when I walked across my home campus where I work. On Oct. 8, 9, and 10, I saw students yelling, “From the river to the sea.” They were not objecting to Israeli entrance in Gaza. They weren’t objecting, I should say they were celebrating that they thought Oct. 7 was the entree, the beginning, the alpha of a larger multipronged assault whose ultimate aim was to kill as many Jews as possible. 

So, why do people react that way given the circumstances? Why don’t they, the world, condemn these killers, these mutilators, these beheaders? And why do they keep saying that Israel is a genocidal enemy when they waited and waited and waited before going in? 

Well, Israel is not the Israel of the 1950s and ’60s, a small, poor nation that is a victim of repeated assaults. It’s a powerful 10-million-person, 10-and-a-half-million-person nation that has high tech, an overwhelmingly strong economy, an attraction of science and technology in the Middle East.  

In other words, in the words of DEI, they are a victimizer or oppressor just because of their, quote, “privilege.” 

DEI played a lot of it. In the world that’s gone mad, in Europe, the United States, Israel, Israelis were white and Palestinians were nonwhite and therefore victims. Doesn’t matter what the reality was. That was the binary. 

Antisemitism played a role. We have half of our people for some reason going to colleges where they’re all indoctrinated. We have immigration now where we’re letting in 5 million people from the Middle East in the first and second generations from what we can tell by Hasan Piker or Zohran Mamdani or Ilhan Omar or Abdul El-Sayed, is that they have very little affection for their host.  

They despise Israel, and they want Israel destroyed, and they work and act and fund to that purpose. 

Add it all up on this commemorative week of Oct. 7, and to sane and sober people, it makes no sense. But sane and sober people, unfortunately, in the West today are in a minority. 

Tucker Carlson Is Wrong About World War II

 

person 1: The interview Tucker Carlson had with Jacob Rees-Mogg, who’s a member of Parliament. I don’t know if he’s still a member of Parliament, but exceptionally smart man, articulate, and of course, Tucker got into World War II. Hitler, Hitler really didn’t want to go to war with England. He said it many times.

Rees-Mogg came back with, “Well, he signed that piece of paper and gave it to Neville Chamberlain, so what Hitler said most of the time was lie.” But I think most people that watched these clips would’ve been embarrassed for Tucker Carlson and his continued desire to push this rewriting of World War II history and other historical incidents in the 20th century.

person 2: Yeah, I watched a lot of it. It was painful to watch because I used to know Tucker and I liked him. I still like him, but obviously something’s happened to him. I don’t know if they meant it to be that way, but what it was really saying, Jack, was here is the American aristocrat, wealthy, privileged kid who grew up in conservatism and represents the right side of the right.

And here is the British aristocrat, very wealthy, who represents the right side. I don’t mean right as correct, but a strong Brexit guy, you know, an ultra-conservative. I’m sorry about the imprecise terminology. So he’s an ultra-conservative, and so is Tucker. Uh, Rees-Mogg is the heir, I think his father was the editor of The Times, and he inherited an estate, and his wife is very wealthy.

So, he’s probably worth $150 million in dollars. Tucker is the heir to the Miller Lux 19th-century land. At one time, it owned almost a million acres in the 19th century. Everywhere I go around here, you can see old Miller Lux ranches. On one side, and then, of course, I think it was his stepmother, but I may be imprecise, was the heir to the Swanson food fortune.

And he went to prep school in Europe, I think, for a while. So, they’re very similar in background. But when they actually talked, Jacob Rees-Mogg was very careful. He cited evidence. He didn’t try to interrupt. He didn’t chuckle and look at the camera. It was very professional, very kind of cold and sober, factual, never lost his temper, and Tucker was highly emotional, spewing out all sorts of misinformation that, what, 1,200 people at Eaton were killed in the war, and it was 200.

Just factually incorrect, and he had to be corrected by Rees-Mogg. As far as the main issues of the debate, once again, Tucker is completely wrong. He says that that Britain did not have to fight World War II, A, that if Hitler had been allowed to win and keep all of his ill-gotten gains from the Russian border all the way to the Atlantic Ocean, Britain would have been better off because after the fall of France in late June of 1940, Hitler made a deal.

And then Tucker said that it could have taken it rather than demonizing Oswald Mosley and the other fascists. He knows nothing about contemporary reports of that deal. What Hitler was saying was, you white Tories, you aristocrats in Britain are a lot like us. That’s not true. They weren’t. And then he’s saying, you can have your empire take a deep breath for a while, but you’re never going to intervene in the continent.

Now, they were already going into Poland and rounding up Jews and killing them. They already were doing, quote unquote, assisted suicide with their own multiple sclerosis, mentally retarded. They were already lining up dissidents and shooting them en masse.

There was only one country in the world that stood between that entire, every single major EU country today was either by June, July of 1940, either aligned with Hitler, maybe we could stretch it to August, September with Greece falling in Yugoslavia, but aligned with Hitler as an ally, neutral but pro-Hitler or occupied by Hitler.

The whole EU, all of the NATO countries, there was only one little country, little Britain and its crumbling empire that it couldn’t quite reach, which was under attack by Japan already before Pearl Harbor in the Dutch East Indies and soon to be in Singapore and soon in India and in Burma. And what did Britain do?

It said, we don’t trust you. We’ve tried to make a deal with you, Hitler, at Munich. You lied. You said that was the last territorial ambition you had, and you annexed, you destroyed Czechoslovakia. And no sooner did we sign that than within a year you invaded Poland. And Poland who lost, who disappeared for years, who had its borders chewed up by Soviet Russia in 1939 with you.

And then what Tucker didn’t say is, because he’s a big fan of Vladimir Putin apparently, is that Britain was attacked, bombed by the help of the Soviet Union from August 23rd of 1939 until June 22nd of 1941. There was no allies. The United States was not in the war. The Soviet Union was on the side of Germany de facto in a non-aggression [pact], supplying 20%, 30% of their food and fuel while they bombed, firebombed Coventry and began firebombing London, etc.

It was only Britain, and Britain was the only country … He makes fun of it because he said, “Well, you went to war when you weren’t invaded.” It’s worse than that, Tucker. Britain was the only country of the six major belligerents, Soviet Union, the United States, Great Britain, Germany, Italy, Japan, who went to war for the principle of upholding its word to Poland that it would protect it if Hitler started a war against it.

And it did. And it was the only country to fight on the first day of the war and the only country to fight on the last. It fought magnificently, given its resources.

Now, he made finally a couple of other crazy … He said that Oswald Mosley was the opposition. Oswald Mosley never had any elected office. He was a fascist and he was pro-Hitler and they dressed up as a black shirt or brown shirt, whatever you want to call him.

He had 5,000. He tried to beat up people in the street. And he said that Hitler, we know now that if he took over, the likely people who would have ruled Britain were him, Mosley, or maybe the Duke, the dethroned king, Edward, or maybe basically pro-Hitler’s David Lloyd George, the prime minister during World War I, was talking about coming back as an interim government.

It was only Winston Churchill who said, “No, do not trust these people. They say that we can have the empire and we can have our navy, but we’ll never have our navy or empire because they’ll have the entire continent, the entire world, and it will be just like Munich again. They will say, ‘You can’t do this, you can’t do this.’ And then we will be completely humiliated as a moral country while they slaughter people as they are doing already and we don’t say a word about it.”

And so, why did Hitler invade the Soviet Union? He said he was going to do it in “Mein Kampf,” but one of the reasons he did it was because Britain would not give in.

He tried everything. He couldn’t invade them by sea. He couldn’t bomb them into submission. He couldn’t beat them in North Africa. He did it because he thought he could take the Soviet Union. Think of that thinking. This huge Soviet Union will be easier to beat than little Britain. That’s what he really believed, that in 10 or 11 days, as Gen. [Franz] Halder said, “Well, after 11 days, one could fairly say the war in Russia is over,” and that that was going to then bully Britain into surrender.

And there wouldn’t be a Jew in Europe today or in the United States probably, because a lot of them came over here, had Hitler won. And Tucker knows that.

And then he says, “Well, they wouldn’t have had all these foreigners.” That didn’t come in 1946 or 1947. Look at the population in 1950. Look at when you had the Rivers of Blood speech, that was in the ’60s.

It started in the ’60s, but it was mostly the idea of Tony Blair. He was the one that really opened the floodgates. That was a postmodern … The empire was in big trouble financially after World War I. World War II didn’t destroy it. They were gonna have to give it up anyway. And they knew that. It hastened it.

FDR hastened it, but it was a dead letter anyway. And so almost everything he said in that interview was false. Once again, he has these little quips that are really… And then he starts chuckling and trying to make fun of this guy, Rees-Mogg, but he really knew history. He was actually educated with a seconds in history at Oxford.

And that used to be really hard to do. And so he knew his history, and he didn’t lose his temper, and he quietly corrected him. And I don’t know any fair-minded person that didn’t think that severely damaged Tucker’s reputation. He couldn’t laugh his way or fudge facts out of that. And one of the subtexts is, again, so if you listen to very carefully, a subtext is the Jews, the Jews, the Jews.

person 1Voic: Oh. You never heard back from him your request that he correct the record.

person 2: No, I haven’t.

I’m still waiting. He said that person 2 thinks the dropping of the bomb on Hiroshima was glorious when I actually said it was a horrific act. But if anybody could come up with a better way of stopping a horrific invasion of Japan that would have cost Americans a million casualties, probably 5 to 6 million Japanese casualties and 15,000 dead every day we were fighting the Japanese.

The Japanese were killing in Asia and the Pacific. I’d be happy to hear it. And maybe they thought, “Well, we could have used the firebomb raid.” Yes, we could have. And the big greatest loss of life in a single day was not Hiroshima or Nagasaki. It was the March 9th or 10th bombing of Tokyo with napalm. And we would have bombed them.

Believe me. After World War II in Europe was over, we were gonna have bombers transferred. We had new B-29s on order, and Okinawa was going to be a deliverance of fiery death to all of Japan had that war continued.

person 1: The fact that Japan did not immediately surrender after Tokyo, it was evidence that they were going to fight to the last man.

person 2: They were very excited, if that’s the right word, because they hadn’t had a really good record when they first introduced in the Philippines campaign kamikazes. But Okinawa was only 900 miles away. And the Zero was a very light aircraft, and it had enormous, almost 2,000 miles of range. And it only had to go one way as a kamikaze.

It was like a cruise missile. So it didn’t have to have the whole tube.

person 1: So they sunk 30-something ships, didn’t they?

person 2: I think they hit 36, and they sunk 19. And they killed 5,000 sailors. And they pulled off a lot of the major carrier groups. They had to get out of there because there was nothing they could do with a Zero, with 50 Zeros and other Japanese planes coming at 350 miles an hour, two feet above the water, under the radar.

And then at the same time, Japanese Zeros diving from 30,000 feet right through fighter cover at full speed. And they’re not trying to shoot anybody down. They’re not trying to bomb. They have one goal, to crash. That’s a lot easier to do than drop a bomb and hit the target. And they were brilliant cruise missiles, and you couldn’t stop them.

And they had 7,000 to 8,000 of them waiting on Japan. They could have destroyed most of the Pacific fleet. And I don’t know why he doesn’t see that, or he does see it. But it’s so easy to say, “Well, I’m so moral. I hate all nuclear weapons. And person 2 thinks they’re glorious.” Just prove it. Prove it.

Prove it. Prove it. Prove it. Just give me a quote. Just say, “Here it is, Victor. You’re a liar. Here you said this. This was glorious.” He will never do that. He’ll never apologize for all the facts that he got wrong in the case of Jacob Rees-Mogg. He won’t. But he got corrected a lot. He could have got corrected a lot more, but Mogg was too polite to just end up saying “wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.”

Who’s Actually Guilty in the Cornell 7 Case

 

There’s been quite a controversy. It’s sweeping the country, maybe the world, about Cornell University, and I think it’s called the Cornell 7. I don’t know if that implies sympathy or furor at them to make them the center. 

But there was a young woman, in 2024, 20 years old, still unidentified, who went to a bar with some people underage. She was 20, the drinking age was 21, and she became intoxicated. 

At that point, the boy that was accompanying her, or maybe others, invited her to a frat party. Well, that should have given a signal. Anybody in their right mind knows that young people at a frat party, with a lot of frisky boys that feel entitled, you have to be very careful. 

She goes in there and is invited up to a room. At that point, she might have, if she had been sober, made a decision: “Am I going to be alone with this boy?” And then that’s a question of two consenting adults whether to have sexual congress. 

But as soon as she got up there, he invited another person to partake in the sexuality, and apparently he did. And at that point, everything started to spiral downhill. 

There were five others that came and went, and I can’t repeat exactly what ensued because I think this is a family-orientated video. But five more people either directly came into the room and had relations with her, or they videoed her, or they sat and watched. It’s hard to know exactly what each of the seven did. 

But when it was all over, she left. She was completely drunk, sick. She went back, and then she felt something had happened. She talked to friends. She had text exchanges with the boy who invited her. 

And let’s just say that for the next six or seven or eight months, she didn’t quite think that she had been raped. She felt pressures that people were not going to like her, they wouldn’t invite her to another party, that they were calling her a … I don’t know what the bad words were, but we’ll just say sluttish, and her reputation was being damaged, and she really hadn’t quite processed what was going on. 

After she left Cornell, almost a year later, she filed a complaint with authorities saying that she had been physically raped and named the boys who did it. 

Outrage followed when they read exactly the details of what had happened on the part of the men, and then they wanted to know, in a legalistic sense, why Cornell or why the local DA hadn’t gone before a grand jury and had them all indicted. 

And of course, they had to follow New York law. In a legalistic, and I say “istic” because I’m not sure it’s really the right word, legal … In a legalistic sense, if you are a person, an adult, usually over the age of consent or 18, and you see another adult and you’re able to answer, “Do you want to go up to my room? Yes, no,” and people say you’re functioning, and when you go up there, and you have sexual relations, and later within a certain time period you do not characterize it as rape, the DA usually says, “I don’t think I can win that case,” and doesn’t prosecute. 

But as the months wore on and the details came out about these boys, some of them actually texted, I can’t repeat it to the world, but basically, there is free blank here, come on over. 

She filed. There is all of this anger now, and it’s not male, female. Brilliant women like Camille Paglia said we have to stop babying girls. These are women. They’re not little girls. If they’re of age, and they choose to drink, even if they’re breaking the law when they do, and they go into a den of frisky boys who are ill-mannered, and they go up to one room, at some point, they have a lot of avenues before they’re incoherent to stop it. And afterwards, if they do not immediately say they were raped or assaulted, then what do you expect? 

Other people say, well, it doesn’t really matter when she realized that she was raped. Maybe she was traumatized, etc. 

So that’s where it is. But I have a different take on it, and I’ll finish with that. 

It’s not so much for me a legal avenue, a legal question. It’s a moral or ethical one. 

What were these boys thinking? What were you thinking, that you see an attractive girl, she’s drunk, she goes up with one of her liaisons, her partner, they go into a room, and then they apparently have sex, maybe with another person? 

At that point, didn’t you think this is bizarre? This girl is consenting to … Would she have done that if she wasn’t drunk or drinking? 

And then what were the other five boys … Why would you video that? Why would you join in that? Why would you mock her? Why would you put on the text … I’m not saying that any of this was illegal, but my God, where was the decency? 

Wasn’t there one person, just one, in that whole fraternity that said, “This is outrageous. This is sick, and I’m going to stop it.” 

And even if she’d objected, wouldn’t you see one person would go up to her and say, “Please, I think you’re drinking. And when you go up to that room, things will happen that you don’t want to happen.” 

And even if she said, “I’m an adult, I can go, then you could monitor the situation.” Go up there yourself and tell everybody, “This woman is not capable of making informed decisions as she would be if she was with other women and sober. She’s now in a room by herself with other men, and she’s intoxicated, and we have people texting that it’s a chance to have free or easy sex with her. This is sick. It’s going to destroy this fraternity. I’m going to stop it.” 

So we were looking for just one honest, wise, brave person in that fraternity. He may have existed, but we haven’t heard of him yet. 

So yes, she should have filed rape charges immediately. Yes, she should have never got drunk in the first place underage. That’s against the law. 

She should have never been so naive to go over with her … I don’t even know what you would call this guy. He seems to be either inept or weak or pernicious. I don’t know what. 

But he accompanies her into this den of horrors. I mean, H-O-R-R-O-R-S, horrific things. 

And then, yes, as soon as she saw that other people … As soon as somebody said, “Would you like a threesome?” she should have said no, because that could invite even more catastrophes, but she didn’t. 

But on the other hand, she’s one, and she’s a woman, and she’s intoxicated, and the other people are strong men, and there’s a lot of them, and it would just take one to stop this evil thing from happening, and none did. 

In the old days, I think, women had family support, so maybe a brother or a cousin or a father would have heard of it and said, “I’m going to go talk to these people.” 

Or he would sit down with his daughter and say, “You are on a very liberal, freewheeling campus, and be careful about these people. They may smile at you, but human nature being what it is, don’t set foot.” That would be wise advice. 

But we don’t live in the old days where men protected women. That’s considered chauvinistic and patronizing. But it does require men to be better than that. 

So my final conclusion about the entire foul escapade is we in America wanted the boys to be better than they were. 

I’m not saying that that meant that they’re guilty of, in the legal sense, rape. I don’t have the evidence or the knowledge to do that. But I do know enough about the case that they should be ashamed of themselves because not one stopped it. 

James Talarico Reportedly Was at a Mental Health Facility in Ohio

 

James Talarico is in one of the most competitive Senate races this cycle, and he disappeared from the campaign trail for almost two weeks. He supposedly reappeared this weekend to poke at Republican Texas AG Ken Paxton over debates, and his team showed him attending a Kacey Musgraves concert.

Talarico is once again being hailed as the Democrats’ best hope to win statewide in the Lone Star State, but his absence drew attention, especially since it looked like he checked into a mental health clinic. That’s not what his campaign said; it said he was sidelined with the flu. This phone call seems to confirm he was a patient at the Lindner Center of Hope near Cincinnati, Ohio. Nick Sortor had the clip

Where the heck is little Jimmy Talarico, the blasphemous imp who the regime media are trying to tell us is the anti-gun, anti-meat, anti-fossil fuel, anti-America, anti-Christian communist who’s going to be the guy who finally turns Texas blue? He should be out on the campaign trail nailing down what the elite has decreed is his inevitable victory, but he’s not. He’s been missing in action since the end of September — time to send out a search party. Maybe we can help, but looking for him is like playing Where’s Waldo, except easier, because you can safely avoid barbecue joints, gun ranges, or churches that actually believe in Jesus.

You know, places where normal people are. People who don’t think that Texas’s biggest problem is white people. People who don’t think that capitalism is a system of oppression that must be dismantled, or that the police are something that must be defunded. People who don’t think that God isn’t a he/him, or even a she/her, but a they/them. People who, when asked what they love, immediately answer “Trans kids.”

None of that’s normal. None of that’s Texan.

Now, his campaign has an excuse. It claims that Talarico has had the flu for about two weeks (!), that he unselfishly wants to spare those around him the risk of catching a glorified cold, and that he’ll be hitting the trail again soon, no doubt in another rented pickup truck, with a borrowed Stetson and a beef rib in his hand that seems like it is about to make him cry. He’s supposedly winning this race, which is why he’s begging for a debate — something candidates who think they have their race sewn up always do — yet he drops out for half a month in the middle of things? Most politicians would be out there stumping even with a burgeoning outbreak of ringworm, herpes, and leprosy. We’re expected to believe that this guy was KO’d for two weeks by the crud? Seems sketchy, but even if true, should he really be risking his health running for the Senate and not dealing with what is obviously a compromised immune system? 

Of course, there’s no reason any Texan should believe a word of what his campaign says. All the guy and his minions do is lie to them. He’s there, on archived video, supporting every freakish lefty thing, from carving up kids to wanting to close down the fossil fuel state’s fossil fuel industry. But being on tape saying it doesn’t stop him from lying about it, even to the point of waving off the record as AI — which he is also against. Hey, who are you going to believe, the guy who looks like Pete Buttigieg’s mini-me, or your own lying eyes?

No, the flu excuse just doesn’t add up. His bizarre disappearance comes right at a time when all the smart people of smartness who’ve never set foot in the Lone Star State have decreed that he’s an inevitable juggernaut who is going to smash a Republican Party that hasn’t lost a statewide office since Talarico was five years old. Now, there are some other possibilities. Maybe his mom grounded him — after all, doesn’t he live with her and, well, her roof, her rules? Or maybe he’s off on a romantic idyll with one of the many young women who I totally believe he has had enduring, passionate romantic relationships with. Maybe we should just hate the game, not the player.

There are other possibilities. Maybe he’s out circulating among his people, you know, the donors in California and New York who he actually cares about. Before he fell off the map, he did a fundraiser with Robert De Niro, another tiny leftist and one who gives off the same level of Texas vibes — none. You get the idea watching him that Talarico can’t wait to wipe the dust of this flyover Red State off his Crocs for the next six years should he win the election. It seems clear he doesn’t really think he’d ever be reelected. He and those around him are all remarkably candid when they don’t think anybody is filming them, that all the fake normalness he’s pantomiming is out the window the minute he gets sworn in and that it will be six years of him fulfilling every AOC/DSA fantasy for his real constituents in Brooklyn, Hollywood, and America’s faculty lounges.

Now, there are rumors about why he’s disappeared. One is that he’s gone nuts, but I am not sure I believe that. In any case, how would we be able to tell? The DSA ideology he embraces is functionally indistinguishable from insanity. But he does give off a disconcerting vibe — he comes off like an ironic normal kid you might find on the cover art of an Oingo Boingo album.

Here in Texas, I think Texans are coming around on this little mutant. When I got back about a month ago, a lot of the normie Republicans didn’t really understand who this guy is. Oh, they thought he was a little weird, but they didn’t really understand the full depths of his strangeness. The roughly $150 million being spent to support Ken Paxton is helping with that. Today, I went off to one of those pleasant, clean, and comfortable suburbs where people who used to live in the big cities retreated to escape the kind of social pathologies that James Talarico’s political ideology nurtures. I was on the road for about two hours, and after I left the little liberal outpost where I live north of Houston, I saw no James Talarico signs. I don’t mean a few. I mean zero, and that’s quite a change from what happened under Beto. There was legitimately Betomania. For whatever reason — or in Beto’s case, for whatever reason, since he is a well-known furry — there was excitement about him. I hear a lot from outsiders about Talarico Fever infecting Texans, but I don’t see it on the ground. Maybe the polls are right. But then again, when have the polls ever been right?

I spent the day with a normie Republican, a guy who likes God, guns, and the flag. He’s not particularly thrilled by Ken Paxton — insiders tell me a lot of the corruption accusations are a total fraud — but he likes what Paxton did as attorney general. He is certainly going to vote, and he’s certainly not going to vote for the pinko homunculus. 

And here’s another thing. While we were together, his phone rang about seven or eight times. He glanced at it and muttered, “Ugh, spam,” and put it down without answering. No pollster is ever going to talk to my guy. And I drove miles and miles through a neighborhood full of guys just like him. Every single one of them is going to vote, and they’re going to vote as they always do — for the Republican.

Hey, maybe I’m huffing copium like a Cornell coed blasting rails of ketamine off a frat boy, but I’m just not seeing a majority of Texans deciding to spend the next half dozen years being represented in the Senate by the Milk Carton Marxist. I touched base with other folks who are deep in the know in Lone Star politics over the last few days and none of them — I mean literally zero of them — believe that Talarico is going to win this.I don’t think they’d lie to me — some are good friends and have never hesitated to tell me things I don’t want to hear before. They are here on the ground, experienced in how the state’s politics work, and they are unanimous that they don’t think Paxton will lose. Oh, it’s not that he can’t lose, and it’s not that it won’t take a lot of work to nail down a victory. Ken Paxton, fairly or not, comes into this with a lot of baggage, and it doesn’t help that the loathsome John Cornyn and his band of banal Bush Boys from the country clubs are demonstrating the kind of loyalty and character we’ve come to expect from them by effectively supporting Talarico to teach the peasants a lesson for daring to defy them.

Whatever the real story is behind James Talarico’s sudden disappearance, he’s never gonna tell us the truth. Ken Paxton is making the most of his opponent going AWOL, and now he’s got the money behind him to make his message break through. That’s good news. This is the first time he’s been inside his Democrat opponent’s decision cycle this election cycle, and hopefully he can stay there. As for Talarico himself, his awkward absence is coming a little early. After all, Beto O’Rourke waited until after he lost to finally just go away.