The Leninist democrats want to Destroy America and Rebuild It

 

We often associate leftist movements, anarchists of the 19th century, Jacobins of the 18th century, Marxists, Bolsheviks, Symbionese Liberation [Army], the Weather Underground with violence.  

And the argument that they use is, we are for mandated equality and fairness and helping the underprivileged, and therefore to achieve those noble ends, which were morally and intellectually superior to those on the conservative side, we’re allowed to use any means necessary. And any means necessary is what’s happening right now. 

Hasan Piker is always in the news.

He’s the multimillionaire podcaster, second-generation Turkish immigrant, who just recently led a cheering crowd in a song, whipped up the crowd, mocking the assassination of Charlie Kirk. He even said, Charlie Kirk, Charlie Kirk. He was whipping them up in a classical demagogic fashion, cheering and celebrating the horrific televised murder of an American activist.  

Remember, he’s also told us that 9/11, we essentially deserved it. It was our fault, 9/11 was. 

He’s not unusual right now on the Left. Angie Nixon is a radical socialist, and she won the Democratic primary Senate campaign, and she will be in the runoff for Florida’s junior senator. She said recently that ICE, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement, were slave catchers and that they were targeting black people, no different than people in the Confederacy, and that the U.S. government was trying to kill blacks. 

She doesn’t understand that under the auspices of DEI, which continues affirmative action, that blacks have given preferential treatment based on past transgressions that the majority of the country felt needed to be addressed.

No one is trying to kill young black people, much less the government. If you look at the murder rates, the statistics make her completely unbelievable. 

Almost 9 out of 10 murders by African Americans are committed by other African Americans. And when there are interracial violence, it’s six to 10 times more likely that an African American will harm, assault or kill a white person than vice versa. White people are underrepresented as assailants in hate crimes. black people are overrepresented. 

I only bring it up just to refute the slur that she’s made against the immigration system and enforcement service. ICE deported people from over 180 countries of all colors, all religions. 

Then we have another luminary in this new radical extremist movement, Abdul El-Sayed. He’s running now. He won the nomination in the Michigan senatorial race. He will be running against Mike Rogers for the Senate. He said—remember, he just—he said that before that he follows Sharia law. He was caught in a hot mic saying that we should not celebrate the death of the supreme leader, [Ali] Khamenei, in Iran. 

Remember, he had just ordered 40,000 of his own people to be slaughtered, that were protesting. And he said, “My constituents wouldn’t like that.” In other words, his constituents, which he’s proud of, were on the side of the Iranian theocracy that for 50 years has been the chief sponsor of terror in the world. 

When he tried to attack a fellow Democrat, Sen. John Fetterman, he said, ideally, you put one ogre on a pike, and then everyone else gets the message. That’s almost a blatant call to kill him and then to use that violence to intimidate other people. 

When there was an attack on a Jewish synagogue by a brother of a Hezbollah member, and he was in the United States, and he was asked to comment, what did he say? Hurt people. Deep breath. Hurt people. Justifying that. 

We’ve had four occasions now when the Secret Service shot at potential and actual Trump assassins. We’ve had Hollywood stars. We’ve had people like Robert De Niro, Kathy Griffin, Shakespeare in the Park in New York, celebrity cooks, and Snoop Dogg.  

They’ve said they’ve all tried to compete in imagining to us an audience through public media and social media whether they should kill Donald Trump, whether they should burn Donald Trump, whether they should stab Donald Trump, whether they could shoot Donald Trump, whether they could decapitate him, whether they could throw him over a cliff, whether they could blow him up. 

This comes on the heels that for the last essentially nine years there’s been no contrition, no apologies for a series of events that almost wrecked the sense of law and order in this country and severely damaged the integrity of the government and was a challenge to the Constitution. 

For three years, the FBI, a rogue agency under James Comey and then later Andrew McCabe, cooked up the Steele dossier, which was a complete fabrication, and tried to take out a Republican candidate for the presidency. Operation Crossfire Hurricane was all based on a lie. 

We were told in 2020 that a laptop with incriminating evidence, which the FBI had in its possession and had verified it was Hunter [Biden] laptop’s possession, it was his property with all the incriminating information on it, was cooked up by the Russians. Fifty former CIA and intelligence authorities swore on the eve of the election that the Russians and Donald Trump were colluding. It was a complete lie. No one has ever apologized. 

We had four prosecutors, Alvin Bragg, Letitia James, Fani Willis, Jack Smith. They all made up charges, and we know now that Alvin Bragg had to take a federal charge when he was a municipal prosecutor that the federal prosecutors thought was bogus. 

Ms. James went after an old loan and said that he didn’t—he exaggerated his collateral when the bank that issued the loan said he didn’t. 

Fani Willis, no need—she’s been so disgraced now. She’s been fined by the court. She made up most of the charges. She was essentially hiring her own paramour and then charging the state for their junkets. 

Jack Smith, he tried to rush a federal indictment of Donald Trump on the Mar-a-Lago raid, and he was trying to get insurrection. That case was thrown out. 

Not enough. They raided Mar-a-Lago, the private home of an ex-president. They said he had dozens of classified material. He had 11,000 documents, and all they could find under contention were 102 documents they claimed were classified. Then they scattered the documents on the ground and made it look as if Donald Trump was some type of criminal. 

At the same time, Joe Biden had done the same thing for 30 years in four locations. No one said a word. 

Over 20 states tried to take a Republican nominee off the ballot for the general election so the voters wouldn’t even have a chance. 

I’m not even gonna get into the social media where the FBI was partnering with social media to squash stories they felt were prejudicial to Joe Biden. 

What we’re witnessing is a revolutionary movement, as I said, and we have people who are celebrating the death of their opponents. They’re dreaming of how to kill their opponents. They’re praising people who murder. This is the starkest choice in November that we’ve had in a midterm election in my lifetime. 

There is a vast gulf, a huge chasm between what the Democratic Socialists are advocating and what traditional conservatives are trying to maintain. 

If they win, we will see the beginning of a destroyed border, and we will return to 12 million people within a four-year period crossing unaudited. We will see a war on fossil fuels, even as we were the greatest producer of gas and oil in history.  

We will see biological men green-lighted to compete in female sports. Antisemitism will be the trademark and anti-hatred, not anti-Israelism, hatred of the only democracy in the Middle East. 

We will see a full-fledged return of diversity, equity, inclusion, prejudice and bias. 

What we’re talking about is a revolutionary group who often is telling us, “If you elect us, you will not recognize the United States as you’ve known it. We must destroy it and rebuild it along socialist and totalitarian designs.” 

Remember that when you go in December, and vote for somebody who says, “We are not ashamed of what America is. We’re the greatest nation in the world, and we’re the greatest nation in the world because of our traditions, our Constitution, our protocols, and we have nothing to apologize for.” 

We Need to Stop Letting in Ungrateful Immigrants

 

All Americans support legal immigration, especially legal immigration that is diverse, as I said, measured in numbers that can be assimilated and acculturated and integrated, meritocratic, so we get people who come here with skills that ensure that we, the people of the United States, will not have to support them, and they have some knowledge of the traditions and customs and protocol of the United States, as well as English fluency. 

But from time to time, that hasn’t happened. And when you have that combined with illegal immigration, as we did under the Biden administration, when 12 million people came in, sometimes at rates of 10,000 a day, plus over a million and a half legal immigrants, then you have a pool of 30 million illegal and legal immigrants and 53 million people who were not born in the United States. 

So then people lose their support for immigration. 

It happened in the early 20th century, say from about 1900 to 1910. About 1.5% of the population, 1 million people, half a million some years, but some years a whole million, came into the United States from Southern and Eastern Europe. And they had very different ideas about politics. 

Many of them were anarchists. They joined unions, and an anarchist, we remember, had killed William McKinley. He was an American-born anarchist, but there was a lot of worry that immigration at that level of 1.5% of the population every year from people who were not integrating but had radical ideas about changing America was dangerous, and it lost public support for years. 

The same thing is happening, as I said now, because of the numbers, but also because we’re seeing a new type of immigrant. 

Usually, we say the immigrant is good for America because he’s eager to get here. He’s eager to work hard. He loves the United States. He’s studied the United States. He wants to leave his homeland and start anew, and then he makes us say, “Wow, look at that energized immigrant that loves this country. We’ve got to snap out of it and compete.” 

That was the idea of immigration, one of the ideas. 

Not now. 

We’re getting a lot of immigrants that are coming from failed states, mostly as a result of communism and socialism. Some of them come legally, some come illegally, and they’re coming in numbers that we can’t fully assimilate. 

But there’s a new type of legal immigrant, and these are immigrants from the first generation or their children in a second generation from failed states. 

And so, let me ask you a question. What do Rashida Tlaib, a Democrat of Michigan, or Ilhan Omar, a Democratic representative from Minnesota whose family came from Somalia, Rashida Tlaib was from the West Bank, or [Alexander Ocasio-Cortez], whose father came from Puerto Rico, who was also a Democratic congresswoman, or the podcaster Hasan Piker, who’s from a multimillion-dollar family in Turkey and was born here and then returned to Turkey, or New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani, who came here from Uganda, or Democratic Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed, who came from Egypt, his family did, or Melat Kiros, whose family and she came from Ethiopia, or Rep. Ro Khanna, a representative congressman from California whose family and his wife’s family came from India, second generation, or Gustavo Gordillo, who is a first-generation immigrant from Peru—and I could go on, but that should be enough. 

What do they all have in common? Let’s count them. 

No. 1, most of them are pretty wealthy. Ro Khanna‘s family is probably worth a quarter of a billion dollars. Hasan Piker drives a Porsche. He has a multimillion-dollar home. His family is worth millions. Ilhan Omar, whether truthfully or untruthfully, filed a financial report that said she was worth $30 million. We can talk about Mr. El-Sayed. He filed a tax return for over $600,000. 

But besides that, they are mostly wealthy, they’re also, with exception of AOC, Muslims, which is fine, except they accentuate their Islamic identity to the extent that Mr. El-Sayed has even said in an unguarded moment that he didn’t want to mention anything about the killing of the Supreme Leader, the theocratic enemy of the United States in Iran, because that might upset his constituents. 

But in addition to being quite wealthy and Islamic and from failed states, many of them, as soon as they arrived here or their parents, equated their own race or their religion or their antithesis to what they call the oppressor or victimizer class, the white male heterosexual Christian we all know who’s supposed to be responsible for all the sins of the world, as somehow exploiting them. 

In other words, think of the argument. You come from a failed socialist state in Somalia or Uganda or Egypt. You set one foot in here or your parents set one foot in here, and immediately you lodge complaints against the gracious host that welcomed you in and welcomed you in with security, prosperity, and freedom that you did not have under the system that you left, but which you seem to now champion in a very chauvinistic way. 

And no sooner than you come without any knowledge of the United States’ nature or history or protocols, you’re so bold that you start to demand socialist changes. 

You want to abolish the Senate. You want reparations. You want to reopen the border. You want to get rid of the filibuster. You want to get rid of the Electoral College. You want to pack the court. You want to change the capitalist system. You want to tax billionaires not on what they make, but on their worth. You want to go after people who have two homes. 

All these are radical things that are outside the American tradition. 

And what people are just stunned by is they thought that under the old immigrant paradigm that you come from your home country and you vote with your feet. 

In other words, you’re saying, “I want to be a new American. I want to take advantage of this system that attracted me there and gave me a home where I had no home.” 

But not now. 

Now is, “I’m very wealthy and I like to come to America and I’d like to experiment, on Americans and impose a foreign socialist system that they have never wanted, and I want to run for office. I want to be a podcast influencer. I want to use my wealth and influence to change the country that I fled to and kind of emulate the system that I fled from.” 

Why are people doing this? Why, we have to ask ourselves, why would you, why would you leave the country that has failed you and go to a country that welcomed you and then be so ungracious? 

I think the primary reason is immigrants from these areas put their finger in the air and they say, “Where do the winds of advantages blow?” 

Not where the right and conservative that says, “We welcome you, but we’re an entrepreneurial capitalist system, and we want you to take care of yourselves, so go to it, and we’ll give you the advice and the infrastructure so you can be successful.” 

Versus, “You are a victim. You’re a non-white victim. You’ve been oppressed. There are affirmative action opportunities for you, both in college admissions and scholarships, race-based scholarships. There is preference in hiring. You can lodge complaints and complain that if you’re not doing well, the entire system is against you and innately prejudiced. We have a whole array, we on the Democratic leftist side, of subsidies for housing, food, legal advice, education, and all we ask of you is to retain your own ethnic, religious, foreign identities, or at least make them as important or more important than your American identity, which is going to be incidental, and therefore show us fealty and loyalty at the polls. Do that, and we will take care of you.” 

And unfortunately, what is the most ironic of all is a lot of these new immigrants who are very affluent are imposing a socialist system, they think, on Americans as if we’re the lab rats and they are the experimenters, and that’s not a very successful way to win the American people over to the cherished idea in the past of legal immigration. 

Why Trump Gets Results While Diplomats Fail

 

person 1: I think Donald Trump has got, as I said earlier, an anaconda Civil War strategy of the North. He’s gonna squeeze them as much as he can, and as they start to pop, they will send off missiles or drones from their vestigial fleet, and he’ll hit them hard. And he hopes that will continue, that containment will continue to the midterms.

I would expect an October surprise by the Iranians to try something to get in the headlines and lose Trump the election. And then after the election, I would think that the Israelis and the Americans would hit them very hard at the slightest provocation, and that would be pretty, pretty devastating.

Meanwhile, there’s the wild card no one talks about, and that’s what are the Iranian people going to do when they can’t even afford fruit, they can’t afford milk, they can’t afford electricity, they can’t afford gas, they can’t afford diesel, they can’t afford kerosene or natural gas? It’s all scarce.

So, they’re either going to retaliate against the regime, and there’ll be more massacres, or they will just keep quiet, but they’re not going to be active economically and fully generating wealth. They can’t do it anymore given what we’ve done to them.

Is that victory? I don’t know. But I think, in our time for this particular mission, the mission was they’re very close to getting a bomb, stop them, and stop them in a cost-benefit analysis.

Tragic we lost 17 dead, but the bigger picture, to attack a country with 93 million people that was the bully of the entire Middle East and to defang it with losing three or four planes, 17 tragic, tragically soldiers, but about $55 billion. But I don’t think anybody thought you could—take that versus a trillion dollars in Iraq and probably $2 trillion in Afghanistan over 20 years.

Jack person 2: Victor, I have a bunch of questions from Barry McDonald, but I’m gonna leave his entrée to them, and I’ll ask some of his other questions later. But here’s one that’s kind of related, ’cause you’re just giving your counsel in a way. But how would you—how would Victor advise President Trump?

And I don’t think that necessarily is advising him related to Iran, and we know, Victor, that you are not pro-advising the president of the United States. But pick. If there was an issue or a topic that you could give some counsel on, what would it be?

person 1: He doesn’t need my counsel, I’ll say that first.

And I’m not a politico that lives in Washington, and I don’t know the scuttlebutt, and I don’t know the personalities involved. But just as an outside observer, maybe from a historical point of view, he has … His trademark is that he addresses things that no one wanted to address.

Government, the size of government with DOGE. And for all the DOGE controversies, government has shrunk dramatically by about 400,000 jobs. Nobody thought you could close the border. They didn’t wanna get near it. The wall was inert after [Joe] Biden [was elected]. He stopped that, and he took a big hit with [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] because it’s one thing …

It’s easy to let in 12 million people, 10 million scattered all over the United States, 500. It’s very hard to find them and coerce them to go back because they had broken the U.S. law, and he did that.

And everybody talked about getting rid of the nuclear program or not allowing them to have a bomb, and none of the prior seven presidents did it.

OK, so, in that context, I think he needs to talk about the last two years, something that is not popular, but he’s not gonna be running again, and that is we are on an unsustainable spending spree. We have $31 trillion. It’s going to be geometric now. People are talking about $40 trillion in two or three years.

We’re spending a billion dollars a day in interest, and it’s gonna be almost impossible to pay that sum back if we don’t do things. And what we have to do, we’re going to have to take a hard look at Medicare and Social Security, which are death—that is, that’s political kryptonite. But you’re gonna have to talk about it.

And the Left will not … All the Left will do is demagogue it. But for the sake of the country, you’re going to have to look … And I think they can—all of this fraud we’re seeing in California, Minnesota, Chicago is reminding people that the entitlement state is way out of control. So, I think they’re going to have to just …

I think if they could just say, “We’re gonna have a hiring freeze and a budget freeze, and we’re not gonna spend any more than we did the year before and let inflation be the actual cut,” I think that would be something that has to be addressed. The other thing is there isn’t a multiracial democracy of our size that works under tribalism.

Indonesia doesn’t work to the extent that it’s really a democracy. India I don’t think works very well. If it worked, we wouldn’t have hundreds of thousands of Indians waiting to come into this country. And I don’t think Brazil works very well. And they all have caste systems and tribal systems and a multiplicity of languages and religion and everything.

And so, what I would suggest is then that he really—he’s done a great job with DEI, but I would suggest what he does is to say, “We’re all one, one people. Americanism, being an American is essential, not incidental, and we’re not going to talk about tribalism or race anymore.” And we’re gonna codify that and try to get legislation if he survives in midterms or through executive orders to expand on what he’s done because that’ll kill a society, this sectionalism—fractionalism, sectarianism, tribalism.

Yeah. And it’s gotta stop. And these democratic socialists have substituted race for class, and all they talk about is race, and it’s gonna destroy the country. So that’s another thing that I would advise him. As far as his methodology and technique, I go back and forth.

Of course, all of us say, “Why does he have to tweet at 2 in the morning?” Or, “Why does he have to make fun of Rob Reiner after he was killed?” Or, “Why does he have to do this or that?” And it doesn’t do any good to say, “They’re worse. They tried to kill him. They didn’t just talk about being insensitive or use crude language.”

The people who tried to kill him were all imbued with leftist ideology. And then the movie stars and the media had a rivalry about how best to imagine his death, and they do it all the time. So he’s in the big leagues. It’s not, it’s not beanball. So, but that said, I think I would be a little quieter and don’t say much about Iran.

Just say, “This is what we’re doing today.” But when I say I’m ambiguous about that is because that he says things like—I’ll give you two examples. Oman basically crossed him on the Strait of Hormuz and other issues. He said, if they’re gonna do that and they’re in our way, we’ll bomb Oman.”

We’re not gonna bomb Oman. It’s an ally. I don’t know what—

person 2: He used more colorful language than that.

person 1: Yes. Yes, bomb the blank. And then he—South Korea, he had called up and said, “For the strait and other things, we’re thinking of internationalizing, and you’re a big importer of foreign crude oil and natural gas. Would you want to participate in Iran?”

Meaning, I think he was trying to imply you have ships, you could help keep up open the strait. He wasn’t asking for ground troops. I don’t even think he was asking for air. They said no. So then he said, “North Korea has been very nice to me lately, and I’m gonna pull out some troops from South Korea.”

You remember when he came in the first time, he said, “We’ve had 39,000 troops there for how long?” We had a lot more, so he’s basically saying, “75 years we’ve protected you from this lunatic, your lunatic brethren country in the north, and all we ask of—and we’ve lost 35,000 dead doing it in the Korean War, so all we ask of you is to participate, not in a dangerous, combative way, but just join a Western effort to keep the strait open so it would free our ships so we can concentrate on the problem of Iran.”

And they said no. And under Biden, remember, he said, “We’re not gonna charge you anything.” Trump was charging him $3 billion a year for our troops to be there and talked about going up to $10 billion. But the way he said it, the way it was portrayed, “Trump is crazy. One day he’s saying he’s going to attack Oman. The next thing, he’s pulling troops out of South Korea ’cause they weren’t nice to him.”

You see what I mean? And I think people are gonna say, “Victor, we’re over that. That’s so then. That’s so history. So what? We don’t care anymore what the Left said.” I know that, but the key, his agenda depends on the independents.

So, when I get calls and stuff, it doesn’t bother me, to tell you the truth, not at all. But I get calls from family members, friends, and they’ll say, “You know what? If I look at what Trump actually did in foreign policy or domestic—it’s great, but why does he do this?” And then they go on a rant, right? So, those are …

It’s a hard call, but is—does that mean that tough, crude, often profane language shocks people and it’s an intensifier or a catalyst for his policy, or does it—does it turn off people? I don’t have that answer, but I think he might experiment by toning it down a little bit.

Don’t Trust the Midterm Polls

Let’s have a periodic check on the status of the midterms that we’re now less than 80 days away from. The Democrats are riding high. They feel that historical trends, i.e., 39 out of the last 41 midterms, the in party in the White House loses seats, and there’s not very many seats Republicans can afford to lose, and they may lose the House and Senate. 

They’re already, I guess you’d call it, measuring their drapes, but in the sense that they’re already explaining how they’re going to go after the Trump family, the Trump family associates, cryptocurrency concerns, any hangers-on, people going to the Middle East and investing. They’re gonna open it wide open. 

These are the people, of course, who never investigated the Biden family or Hunter Biden. That’s no excuse if there’s culpability, but nonetheless, you can count on a two-year investigation of Donald Trump and a never-ending impeachment inquiry, and the end of the MAGA agenda should he lose the House and the Senate. 

Donald Trump is strangely confident. He now has finally hit on a strategy that he feels will work. Earlier, I called it the “Anaconda Strategy,” the idea that he is squeezing a debilitated Iran. In other words, the kinetic 40 days of bombing have left the nuclear military-industrial complex in shambles. 

And this time, he’s not just blockading, he’s not just having an embargo on goods. He is not just freezing the bank accounts of Iranian grandees. He’s not just debanking the entire country. He’s going to third parties and saying, “You and China and Russia and Europe have been trading with this country even while we were bearing the burden of defanging a potential nuclear renegade nation, and we’re going to isolate you. We’re not gonna do business with you if you do business with Iran.”  

And the Iranians now are crying foul. They’re saying we’re colonialists. But what I’m getting at, after all that military damage from Feb. 28 for the next 40 days, and after all the blockades, they’re not able to withstand a renewed squeezing. 

And so, time is actually on our side. The second part of this strategy is Donald Trump has now put the war on the back burner. He is saying that we don’t need to have ground troops. We might not even go in and bomb them again unless they egregiously attack an ally of ours or one of our carriers or ships. 

We have managed it now. The strait is mostly open, and whatever the status of the nuclear stockpile or enriched uranium of the theocracy, it’s pretty clear they can’t get at it.  

Hamas, the Houthis, and Hezbollah don’t seem to be getting money. They don’t seem to have enough rockets to threaten the Gulf States or Israel, at least to get through their missile defenses. 

And so, we’re just going to concentrate, Trump thinks, on the economy.  

So, what he is doing now is he and JD Vance are barnstorming the country, and they’re starting to make headway. They’re not worried about the polls that show a generic 7% Democratic advantage and betting odds and polls that say they’re gonna lose the House because they looked at the recent primaries. 

El-Sayed, the candidate, Abdul El-Sayed, the Democratic candidate for the Democratic senatorial seat in Michigan, was polling ahead 10 points, and he scarcely won by a point and a half.  

Francesca Hong, the Wisconsin Democratic candidate for governor, was polling ahead 10 or 15 or 20 points. She lost and lost handily.  

Mr. [Alexander] Vindman, who was running for Senate in Florida, was polling ahead. He lost to a crazy, wacky Ms. [Angie] Nixon, a democratic socialist.  

So, what I’m getting at is the polls are worthless. And what we need to look at is what the status is right now. 

The war is starting to wane. If it should end or if the Iranians crack in the next 60 to 70 days, that would be a spectacular achievement that Donald Trump—you know, we’ve tragically lost 17 Americans—but at a tolerable cost in blood and treasure, he ended a 50-year problem that seven presidents said was existential. 

You could not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon, and the pressure that he’s put on them and the damage he’s inflicted would probably, in the next year or two, prompt a renewal of internal opposition against a theocracy that is bleeding.  

The second thing to remember very carefully is, as I said earlier, the redistricting, the red state redistricting and the Supreme Court prohibition on racial gerrymandering might give him an additional four or five seats. 

But the most important developments are money and the agenda of the new Democratic Party.  

Very quickly, Donald Trump has got a war chest of about $400 million, and he’s now going to use it. He says he’s going to use it all in his political action committees to help save the Republicans in the midterms. 

Elon Musk said that he is going to match dollar for dollar the Democratic oligarchic class that if they start to donate in great amounts to Democratic candidates.  

So, the money issue probably favors also, like, the redistricting and maybe the course of the Iran war that could wane and be not an issue. 

But the most important thing to conclude is the Democratic Party. No one thought that the Democratic socialists would ever try to absorb and even seem to succeed in absorbing the Democratic Party. I mean, Nancy Pelosi, Hakeem Jeffries, Chuck Schumer, they’ve all said they have no problem with the Democratic socialists, that they … 

It’s a big tent party, and they’re going to help them win their seats. But the problem is, once you have the money and the effort and the attention, and you show what the democratic socialists are, like, defunding the Pentagon, defunding the police, opening the border, mass amnesties, warring on fossil fuels, isolationist foreign policy, the transgender issue reopened with biological men now by statute free to compete in women’s sports. I could go on and on. 

They even want to destroy the Senate and the Electoral College, not to mention packing the Supreme Court, ending the filibuster, and bringing in new seats in the Senate by admitting new blue states such as Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico.  

And so, what I’m getting at is, the more we learn about the democratic socialists, and the more that the Democratic Party feels they’ve already taken over the apparatus of the party and they’re going to join them, or at least they’re not going to oppose them, they’re gonna be culpable or responsible for what these people say. 

And they’re saying all sorts of stuff, not just antisemitic venom, not just anti-Israel venom, but questioning the very legitimacy of the United States government, the way that our Founders created a legislative, judicial, and executive branch, the Declaration of Independence. Our entire traditions, they’re saying, are flawed at their origins. 

They got worse during our maturity, and now they’re god-awful right now. That’s not a winning message.  

So, the midterms are very much up in the air.  

Contrary to historical precedent, there’s still a chance that the Republicans can save both the Senate and the House.  

 

Nixon Was the ‘Most Naturally Bright President’ We’ve Ever Had

 

person 1: So, I’m anxious to hear about our John Tyler, but also Richard Nixon, who is probably the more infamous of the two, although I’m not sure he should be.

person 2: I don’t think he’s infamous. He’s actually enjoying a renaissance right now among young people.

John Tyler was our 10th president. He was an accidental president. He was the first president who was elevated to the presidency as vice president. It doesn’t really say in the Constitution that the vice president shall become the president.

It said the vice president can fulfill the duties when the president is incapacitated. So, he’s kind of famous that when William Henry Harrison died after 31 days in office, he didn’t just start doing it. He said, I want to be sworn in as the president, and that wasn’t in the Constitution. But that inaugurated that and later amendments reified that.

So, he was this Virginia slave owner, and he was in the Democratic Party. He was originally a Jacksonian from 1841 to 1845, so we’re getting very close. He’s gonna be followed by [James] Polk, and he followed [Martin] Van Buren, who wasn’t very popular. And we’re getting closer and closer to the big 1861 divide. He did nothing to slow that down.

He said he abhorred slavery, but he never sold his 40 or 50 slaves he had. He’s famous for having the most children of anybody. I think he had 15 children. Fifteen. He was married twice. Eight children the first time, seven the second.

person 1: I did not know that. That is crazy.

person 2: Yeah, he was, and he was very … He was a hotshot young guy in the Jacksonian period.

And he was a pillar or a primary guy in the Democratic Party, and he arose with a John Calhoun idea of states’ rights. And [Andrew] Jackson had been a big critic of the Adams family elite and the federal government, the Federalists. But once the South Carolinians said they were not gonna pay tariffs in 1832, I think Jackson became a tough Federalist.

And same thing with the Trail of Tears. He just went in, and he did what he had to do, he thought, and he really empowered the presidency. And that Tyler was on the other Calhoun side and broke with him. But when you look at over the four years, it’s really hard to see anything that he did. He had a treaty with China.

He tried to finesse the Democratic Party. He didn’t split with the Democrats in the North who were opposed to slavery. And he said, “On the one hand, I’m opposed to slavery. On the other hand, we have all these slave owners in my native state, and we’ll have a civil war if we outlaw it. So, let’s just pass it on.” And then the next president will be Polk.

He was much better. But when you look at presidents that are rated, I mean, there’s, at the very bottom … And these are left-wing historians. Everybody should remember that. People, when you see presidential rankings, I think [Barack] Obama’s like eight or something. They’re all left-wing. The next Lincoln, remember, his Springfield, Illinois, train ride from Chicago or whatever it was, as he was the young Mr. Lincoln saving us from ourselves.

But in any case, I think he’s rated like 39th or 40th, along there with James Buchanan and Millard Fillmore. And if they put Nixon in there, that’s very unfair. He was a good president. He just made a couple of mistakes. He mussed his hair up, so to speak, as they say in “Dr. Strangelove.”

person 1: Yeah, but nothing … He didn’t do even half as bad as some of the stuff we’ve seen recently.

person 2: I mean, what he did was, essentially, he had a bunch of zealots and an ex-CIA officer thought that the Democrats had … Larry O’Brien was crazy, or he was mental, the head of the DNC, and they wanted to get stuff on him.

So, they broke in, and then they contained it, and then they got arrested, and they wanted money. So, then they went into the lower rings of the White House. Howard Dean was the presidential counselor. He finally heard about it, and then he came and told Nixon, and Nixon basically said, “What in the blank? Are you kidding me? We’ve got an election.”

So, they got through the election of ’72. The second-largest popular vote landslide in history was Richard Nixon’s 1972 thrashing of George McGovern. Only Lyndon Johnson, playing on the sympathy of the Kennedy assassination, had beaten Barry Goldwater like that. It was just incredible.

So, here he was at the top of the world, and he had all … He was juggling all of these key balls. First of all, he had Vietnamization, and he went into Vietnam, and he was given a mess in 1969, and he had drawn down from about 500,000 troops to almost none. And he was negotiating with them, and he knew that when we were leaving, they would take advantage of them.

But we had first-generation laser-guided bombs, so he started bombing the North, not like Operation Rolling Thunder, but Operation Linebacker. And they started targeting key personnel of the communists in North Vietnam, generals, agents, etc. And they, that made a profound approach.

So, he had a peace deal, and he thought he could get out, and he did get out.

So, there was a viable South Vietnam. That was the whole point. Of course, after Watergate, they sold the Vietnamese out, and they wouldn’t give them air support, so they got … And then at the same time, he was trying to triangulate with [Henry] Kissinger, his secretary of state and his national security adviser in one office.

First person to do that. Marco Rubio is doing it now. And Kissinger said, well, you have to triangulate. Triangulate. And they said, well, wait a minute. They’re all comm—he said, “They’re both communists. They’re both bad, but we can play off one against the other.” So, we said no. China, under Nixon—he went to China.

He saw a decrepit old Mao [Zedong]. He didn’t hold … He was the arch anti-communist during the McCarthy period, and he was Ike’s vice president for eight years. Ike treated him really badly, too, when they … That famous thing when they said when Nixon ran for president in 1960, when he lost to JFK, “Well, can you say something in praise of your former vice president, now candidate?”

He said, “Give me a week” or something like that. Give me a few days to think about it. So, Ike could be very cruel to people for all of his … He was a good president, too, but … And so, he was solving the Vietnam. It was solved by the time of Watergate. He had really started the détente process by being really tough.

He saved Israel in the Yom Kippur War of ’73. He was under enormous pressure. Kissinger was sort of working on getting Anwar Sadat to flip from the Russians and have a new peace deal if he got the Sinai back. But Kissinger was kind of tinkering around like, “Let’s not give them too many Phantom jets and try to help tit-for-tat.”

And Nixon said, “Get those transports and you put anything on it and you get over there and save the Jews.” And that’s very ironic because when he had his tapes come out, he just used derogatory language about everything. He didn’t really mean it, though. He was just, “The Jews are, they’re smart people. You got to be careful, don’t you think?” Stuff like that. And that hurt him.

But my point is, if you look at what he did about the Vietnam War, and then the Left started liking him. He created the EPA. He created the endangered species list. He created the toxic waste list, all of that. He was really good on the environment.

And the problem with him was I think he was probably the most naturally bright president we’ve ever had. He was smart. He was the best poker player in in a large group in the Navy. I know my grandfather, my maternal grandfather, was a Democrat. He got my parents really angry. And they said, “You can’t vote for Dick Nixon.”

And he said, “Well, he was the best poker player in the Navy. He, five-card stud, you couldn’t beat the man. It’d be good to have him as president. He’s sharp, Pauline. He’s sharp.”

And so, I remember that, and a couple of other things we forget now. 1960, you can make an argument … I know the Left says, “Well, Victor, you’re just a conspiracy theorist, but you could make the argument that Richard Nixon lost that election by 0.2%.”

In Cook County, Illinois, Chicago, there were some questionable ballots, and there were some questionable ballots in Texas. And had he demanded a recount and got … there might have been. The Democrats might have lost Illinois and lost the Electoral College, and he was very good about that.

He said, “A losing candidate does not question, or if we do that, our reputation worldwide … ”

He always thought of things in terms of foreign policy. So when all of these things were going on, and he’s thought that … And he got us off the gold standard for good or evil, but he was working on all of these things to end the Cold War, and he might have done it.

And then when it came to John Dean, he was looking at the papers every day, Woodward and Bernstein, Nixon’s gonna be guilty. We’re gonna finally get Nixon. Tricky Dick. They hated him, and so he dug down. And so he said, basically, “Well, what do they want? They got caught, so take care of them, meaning when they get out, give them money.”

And that looked really bad because they denied he did. Said Nixon didn’t know, and Dean turned state’s evidence. Dean was a sneaky blank mean … I remember he took money and borrowed it out of the White House to remodel his patio or something like that. But in any case, once the Watergate started, today, when you look at today, I mean, there was Deep Throat.

That was just a disaffected Mark Felt, FBI agent. He just wanted to be FBI director and was gonna rat everybody out. So when you look at… I mean, Barack Obama in the Oval Office had [John] Brennan, [James] Clapper, and [James] Comey, and he knew that Steele dossier was fake, and he was basically saying, “Go back and give me assessments that show me that Donald Trump is a Russian collusion,” when there was no evidence.

We know that. We know that he spied on the AP reporters. We know that. We know that Obama spied on James Rosen, spied on his grandmother’s text messages. They got mad for the secret bombing of Cambodia. Well, it wasn’t secret with Barack Obama. He detailed 500 assassination drone missions on the Pakistani border and killed two citizens.

Maybe they deserved it, maybe not. And he bombed Libya. They said [Iran’s] an illegal war. What are you doing? Well, what was Libya for seven months of bombing with no congressional authority. I could go on, and you saw what [Bill] Clinton did.

So, given how astute he was and what a great president he was in foreign policy and why he had really silenced the Left, they wanted to get rid of him, and they got rid of him.

He resigned in the summer of ’73. They knew that Jerry Ford was kind of a nice guy but not really sharp and that they could manipulate him.