Dating In Your 40s As A Man: Why Apps Feel Broken (And What to Do Instead)

 

If apps feel like a waste of time, you’re not wrong. Dating apps promise convenience. But if you’re dating in your 40s as a man, they often deliver the opposite: frustration, flakiness, and dead-end conversations that go nowhere. This can knock your confidence and leave you feeling rejected. However there is another way 🙂

As a dating coach with over 15 years experience helping men like you, in this blog I’ll share:

Why dating apps feel broken (especially at this stage of life)
Why in-person dating actually works better for men over 40
And how to shift your dating strategy without feeling like you're starting over

🚫 Why Dating Apps Are Failing You (And Men Like You)

    You’re Not Marketing Yourself To Attract The Women You Want

At this point in life, you probably know a lot about who you are; but you may not know how to market yourself to the women you want. You may not have very many photos of yourself full stop (it’s vain and awkward right?) Whilst dating apps demand perfect photos. You may not know how to write prompts that are the right mix of sincere and fun, without sounding like every other guy out there. You might be overlooked for not being flashy, ultra-online, or chasing trends. It’s not a reflection of your value—just the design.
Man in 40s sheltering woman with this jacket
“C’mon quick kiss… no one can see us.”
2. ….And Even If You Do, You’re Facing Stiff Competition

Even if you get great photos, write witty prompts and use AI to craft messages… so has every other guy out there. Dating apps are saturated and often have a user base that’s two-thirds male. They’re the digital equivalent of walking into a bar and there’s 2 men for every woman. Inevitably this means women get overwhelmed, and many men never get a shot. Some studies place the average match rate for men at 0.6% – meaning they have to like (and message) 140 profiles to get a match! Then you have to get from match to a first date, second, third. When you look at the hard stats, the results are shockingly low. The important point for you is not to see this as a reflection on your worth, and attractiveness; as a man over 40 this is just the state of play on dating apps.
3. You Get Filtered Out—Before You’re Even Seen

With age settings on dating apps, many women will filter you out, even if you look and feel great. It’s just human nature: If a woman is given an age range to select between, she’ll often cut off at milestone birthdays for example, if she’s 32 she may select 32-39, and lose all the matches over 40. In reality if you met her in person, and you had a great connection, it’s likely that she wouldn’t care that you’re a couple of years older than she had imagined her ideal partner to be. I’ve coached many men who have seen a drop over in their dating app matches after they’ve gone over 40, and an even sharper decline after 45.
4. The Effort Doesn’t Equal the Return

How many times have you spent 30 minutes writing a message, only to get ghosted? For mature men, this feels inefficient—because it is. Your time and energy are better spent in places where connection happens organically. Not only do dating apps pose lots of problems for men who are 40+ in terms of getting onto a date, even if you get there, the process doesn’t feel that rewarding. Instead, successful dating as a man in his 40s boils down to doing the harder thing (getting out of your house to meet women in real life) to make your life easier (better connections, more dates and a better all round experience.)
✅ Why IRL Dating Works Better for Men Over 40

    Your Strengths Show Up in Person

It’s well known that women aren’t that visual in how they experience attraction and choose partners. The bad news is that dating apps are like window shopping, and they often prompt people to rely on choosing people who look like their type. The good news is, once you cut out the middle man and meet her in person, all of your other strengths that create attraction can register with her. In real life, your tone, humor, eye contact, and presence carry weight. Women pick up on energy, maturity, and warmth—things that just don’t translate through a screen.

Apps hide your strengths. In-person reveals them.
2. You Stand Out from the Crowd

Most men your age aren’t showing up at community events, dance classes, or wine tastings. If you are? You instantly stand out—not just because you’re present, but because you’re engaged. How do I know this? I work with women too! Women in their 30s and 40s often spend a lot of time wondering where you are hiding! The truth is, most men over 40 have let their social circles shrink (it’s just not the same as when you went to college) and their few remaining friends are coupled up. Losing your wingmen means your “social life” might revolve around going to work, hitting the gym, and catching up 1-1 with old friends. You don’t need a dating coach to point out that this isn’t getting you in front of enough women!
Man in 40s riding bike with woman
“I’ll go look for a charging station.”
3. Shared Context Creates Natural Chemistry

When you meet someone at a concert, on a hike, or through mutual friends, you’re already sharing something meaningful. That’s miles better than “So, what do you do?” over an app chat that fizzles out. Most people find it easier, and more natural, to verbally communicate rather than try to portray their personality on a dating app. Also when I ask women how they would ideally like to meet their partner – through friends is the dream. Meet her through your social circles and you get an automatic boost in terms of how seriously she’ll consider your connection. For women, meeting a guy on an app is a boobie prize: Instead she wants her friends to be telling her about a great guy she must meet. This also translates neatly to her effort levels: Anything less than a spark filled first date will get you ruled out on an app, however if you’ve met in person she’ll be more willing to give it a shot.
4. You Avoid the Ghosting/Game Playing Trap

In real life, conversations are humanized. There’s more mutual respect, less game-playing, and fewer people disappearing mid-conversation. Women in their 30s have some experience with dating. This can mean they’re finely tuned to what they want, and don’t want. Dating apps are highly impersonal and don’t create a sense of safety for her when you meet. This means one message that slips up in its tone can lead her to freak out and unmatch or block you. Whilst this is also her responsibility to be less judgemental, people tend to give others more mutual respect and flexibility when you have a real world connection.
What if you don’t have much relationship experience?

Before we look at how to meet women in real life it’s worth addressing, “how does this differ if you’re dating as a man in his 40s with little experience?” As a single guy in his 40s you might:

Have tons of dating experience and be clearer than ever about what you want.
Returning to dating after a divorce, or long term relationship, and feeling like you’ve missed out on a big chunk of dating experience. 
Have reached this life stage without yet having a significant relationship, and are worried this reflects badly on you.

To start with, regardless of your relationship experience, the same rules apply! Dating as a man in his 40s will be easier for you to focus IRL rather than online. Secondly, however you made your journey to being 40 – you’ve got to own it. Even if you don’t have much dating experience, in your 40s you will have greater knowledge of who you are, be more experienced generally, and an attractive choice for women who value maturity and stability in a partner.
💡 What to Do Instead (How to Date IRL Without Making It Awkward)

    Put Yourself Where Connection Can Happen

Go to places where you’re likely to meet women who match your interests and values. Meeting women in person also creates a filter – it takes a lot more effort for her to show up at an event, versus simply putting a profile online. Here’s some of my favourite spots for you to meet women:

Fitness studios (yoga, pilates, group hikes, spin, bouldering, social dance.)
Cooking classes or wine tastings
Singles, networking and speed dating events
Bars that professionals will attend to catch an after work drink.
Volunteering or spiritual groups
Live music, art walks, or talks

Pro tip: You might worry that some of the women you meet will already be in relationships. This is true – about two-thirds of women will already be partnered up, and of the single women only roughly half will be actively looking to meet someone. However, the fact she has the time to show up to an event, means it’s less likely that she already has a partner/ family. The other thing to remember is, even if she’s already coupled up, that you can still have a mutually rewarding, fun, sociable conversation with her… and she may even have a friend she’s keen to introduce you to.
2. Don’t Just Show Up – Say Something!

Even if you’re regularly showing up at tons of well targeted events, simply showing up won’t be enough. Women aren’t that visual (i.e. she’s unlikely to find you super attractive before you’ve spoken to her) and also women won’t be proactive (i.e. she’s unlikely to start a conversation with you.) Now, you may wish she did come over and speak to you, but if you wait on a clear signal – you’ll be leaving a lot of potential dates on the table. Instead, time to get on board with how fun it can be to initiate. Here’s two simple ways to get started with this:

Be direct at singles, or speed dating events. If you’re at an event and you already know you’re both single, then there’s less need to tread carefully – instead strategic boldness will set you apart from the other men in the room. Recently one of my coaching clients went to a singles event, and saw one woman he really wanted to speak to. A perfect moment didn’t arise, so before he left he took his chance by walking right up to her and saying, “I know I’m interrupting your conversation, but I didn’t want to leave this event without coming over and introducing myself…” (Yup, terrifying but also the stuff of romantic movies.) He was in a rush so wrapped up quickly by saying, “I’d like to get to know you better, and talk more another time. My taxi’s waiting, but let me grab your number.”

Be socially smooth if you meet a woman through a hobby or fitness activity. Whilst bold and daring pays off at singles events, smooth and sociable is a better shout when you’re not sure why a woman is there. Approach a woman boldly at the gym and it may seriously backfire! Instead start a chat based on something you see or experience (how busy it is, the instructor, the music playing). If she’s receptive, swap names. If you continue speaking, swap social media. A subtler approach will allow you to feel out opportunities in a socially intelligent and attractive way.
3. Say Yes to More Invitations & Don’t Be Afraid To Ask (Seriously)

Most men over 40 shrink their social circles. Flip that. Say yes to dinner parties, reunions, events. Even if there’s no one you’re interested in—you’re practicing connection. It also will help your social life to gain momentum. Be the guy who not only says “yes” to invites but is a solid value add to social gatherings: Man the BBQ, organise the playlist, help clear the dishes, relay a great anecdote, be a fantastic listener.

This will increase how socially attractive you are, you’ll make new friends, gather more invites, and eventually meet women who are single through your social circles!

Also don’t shy away from asking for introductions. This isn’t cheesy—it’s smart. Tell a few trusted people:

“I’m open to meeting someone great. If someone comes to mind, I’d love the introduction.”

Women trust referrals. And your friends likely know women who are single but done with apps too.
4. Build Confidence in Your Real-Life Skills

If it’s been a while, practice small talk. Learn to show warmth. Smile more. Start a few low-stakes conversations in line at the café or at the gym.

You’re not trying to “pick up” women—you’re showing that you’re approachable and curious. That’s rare and attractive. If you focus too heavily on your goal of meeting a woman, it’s going to be easy to register the initial steps you take as failures, rather than successes. Instead your first goal is to work on your process and give yourself a ton of credit for the work you put in.

Here are some simple initial goals that are achievable and realistic:

Research real life dating venues and events that work for you (don’t be disheartened if a few events you go to are duds, this is part of your refinement process.) 
Checkout chit chat: This means whenever you have the opportunity you start a small social conversation with the people you meet in your everyday life. 
Swap in woman-friendly hobbies: Drop one free weights session for a spin class. It’s okay to change up your schedule slightly to give you more opportunities. 
Work from a co-working space or cafe rather than from your home. 
Focus on paying compliments and making her day. It takes time to learn how to get great at talking to women in real life, to start with focusing on breaking the ice. 
Say “yes” to any social invitations, and if you hear other people discussing a get together be proactive and ask to come along! 
Remember you are a guy who has a lot to offer - so when you talk to a woman you add to her day, and you don’t take away from it.

👊 The Mindset Shift That Changes Everything

Instead of chasing attention on apps, shift your mindset to:

Creating opportunities for connection
Being present and open in your daily life
Enjoying the process, not forcing the outcome

This isn’t about “trying harder.” It’s about showing up in ways that naturally highlight your strengths.

As a man over 40, your calm confidence, values, and experience shine in person. That’s where you build trust. That’s where you connect. That’s where dating gets interesting again.

It takes bravery to build a new routine, and to talk to attractive women in real life; but it’s also far more rewarding and successful. So quit outsourcing your self esteem to dating apps, and start embracing just how attractive you can be as a man over 40 dating in real life.

From Monroe to Clinton, How the American Presidency Changed

person 1: Your presidents today are, as you’ve been speaking of, Bill Clinton and then also [James] Monroe, who followed on [James] Madison’s work and is probably most famous for the Monroe Doctrine.  

person 2: Yes. James Monroe was our fifth president. [George] Washington, [John] Adams, [Thomas] Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, and he was … Just think of it. 

He was, after Washington and Jefferson and Madison, he was the fourth president from Virginia, and that was at that time called the Virginia Dynasty. I think there would be four more. I don’t know if I remember them all, but there was [John] Tyler and Benjamin Harrison and Woodrow Wilson. I’m sure Woodrow Wilson was a Virginian. 

He was a Southerner, abject racist, by the way, not that that’s always to be equated with Southerners. It’s not.

But [Monroe’s] known now for a couple of things. Liberia, the capital is Monrovia. Remember that? He was a big advocate of reverse colonization as a solution to the slavery problem, and during his administration, it didn’t work out too well because slaves, African slaves had been there for 200 years. So they were no more African than white people were. 

You know what I mean? So, it didn’t work out too well. But he also had seen this during Madison and his presidency, they had closer ties with …  

After the War of 1812, they kinda shifted, and they normalized their relationship with Britain, number one, and they had seen what the French Revolution had done and Napoleon that followed had done to Europe. 

And they were very skeptical of the Spanish Empire. So, there was a new idea that the United States would follow Washington, would not get involved with foreign powers. But they had established a much better relationship with Britain. They were going back to being pro-British again. And the result of that was they were very skeptical of the Spanish. 

And so, under Monroe, they annexed Florida. And he and Madison were really instrumental in carrying out the, not the spirit of the Louisiana Purchase, but the actual implementation of it.  

So, this was a period where they doubled the size of the United States, and he was … But one of the things he did not want were imperial European powers intervening in the Western Hemisphere. 

That was largely Spain, because the Spanish Empire had a very different attitude about colonization. It was not open to Europeans. It was not open to Protestants. You had to get permission of the Spanish Crown, and you had to get the permission of the Spanish Crown and its Catholic manifestation. 

And he was worried that Spain was playing too great a role and would get too powerful right on our border with Mexico.  

person 1:  I think that was the period, the 1820s, when the Spanish Empire was falling all over Latin America. Like, there were revolutions,  

person 2: It was. It was starting. But the impetus was that he felt that the imperial … 

All the Founders have thought that the imperial tradition of the French in Canada, the Spanish and the British in Canada, the British in America, the Spanish south of the border was nefarious, toxic. So, it was the duty of the United States to get them out. And get them out in the sense to get the French out and buy their land off and get the Spanish out of the United States and buy Florida or settle it. 

And by extension, they did not want Spain to then start dictating to these national liberationist fronts. They really did believe that Bolívar and San Martín, all these people were gonna create United Stateses.

They weren’t. They weren’t gonna last is what I’m saying. They had a very different origin and maturity than we did. 

The Spanish crown was very different than the British crown. They weren’t the same. There was no Spanish enlightenment like there had been a British and Scottish enlightenment.  

He’s known now for the Monroe Doctrine, which in 2013 [John] Kerry said that he had renounced. It was no g- But now it’s sort of been reinvigorated. 

I think most people consider him a very good president, better than average. But he’s also kind of the end of a president either selecting his former opponent as secretary of state or vice president, or there’s not a big difference in the party between the Whigs, and the Federalists party was dying at this time, and the Republican Party, the people for the Republic, I should say, it’s different than the later Republican Party. 

They were gaining ground, but I think they call it the era of good feelings or the era of good relations. 

It was ending. So you’re gonna get a modern antithetical two-party system of really angry, and it’s gonna be characterized by we want a strong federal government and we want internal improvements, and we want taxation and tariffs versus a Jeffersonian, we wanna be left alone and have states’ rights, et cetera. 

So, anyway, the idea of an aristocracy has only got one more president left, John Quincy Adam, and then that’s over with. The idea that you’re gonna come from New England or Tidewater, Virginia, it’s gonna be populism. You know, Zachary Taylor and James Polk and Andrew Jackson.  

As far as Bill Clinton goes, elected in ’92, he never got over 50% of the vote. 

I don’t think he ever did. I think he got 41 or 42% in ’92, and he got 49.6 or something in ’96. That was largely because of Ross Perot. Ross Perot, for what all the Democrats wanna say, he took more votes away from George Bush than he did from Bill Clinton, and he was responsible, and he knew that. He said that he wanted to help the Democrats. 

He said they’d become normal again under Clinton. He was a leftist, and the Republicans, when they ran against him, tried to say that when he was a student at Oxford, you remember that he … I like that new word. He was adjacent to the communist other students, and they said that he was smoking marijuana. That was when smoking marijuana was disqualifying, and he said he did smoke, but he never inhaled. 

And that was the beginning of, “I never had sex with that woman,” because the type of sex he had with the woman he didn’t say qualifies with traditional notions of sex.  

person 1: What was that thing where they kept saying he said, “Well, that depends upon what is is”? 

person 2: Yes, he was being asked by the special prosecutor, and he said it depends on the definition of is, meaning are you, basically, are you having sex? 

Did you have sex? And it was sort of like, “Now? Well, no, I’m not.” You know what I mean? 

person 1: Was the special prosecutor Fitzpatrick? Was that the one?  

person 2: No, he was the one that went after Scooter Libby, as I remember. Oh, that’s right. That’s right. It was Kenneth Starr. Ken Starr. I met him and I knew him a little bit. 

He was a very fine person. He was dean of the Pepperdine Law School, and, and he got a really bad … 
 
You can chalk that up to James Carville. He got on TV and he just character assassinated him. “And there, that special prosecutor, he’s a cigarette lawyer. He’s a cigarette lawyer. That’s what he is. He just is sending cigarettes, cigarettes, cigarettes.” 

That’s what he did. I met James Carville once when I was speaking  on a Hillsdale cruise. He was incidentally on the same boat, and he came up to me, and he tried to tell me that the T-34 was the best tank in World War II. I see you’re talking on World War II. The Sherman was …  

And I said, “That’s just so stereotypical, James. Do you have any idea of maintenance and hours of maintenance to make it, you know … ” The T-34 had no radios in it. It stored its shells verydangerously at the front of the compartment and they could blow up. 

It was a very good tank, but it was basically based on a Christie American chassis. And the Sherman, for all of its defects, it was a medium tank. It was not intended for …  

Oh, I was explaining on, “No, no, the Sherman’s no good. It’s no good.” Very dogmatic guy.  

Not to mention that he didn’t … He and Doug Schoen and Mark Penn made sure that Clinton and Dick Morris got the white working class. And they all staged that Sister Souljah moment where they went to Jesse Jackson’s Rainbow Coalition, and they deliberately said to her, and she said, “Why do we Black people kill each other? 

Why don’t we just go for a change and kill white people in their neighborhoods?”  

And he said, “You should be ashamed of you should be ashamed of yourself.” And that that took a lot of independence. They said, “Wow, he’s not that left-wing after all.” He’s known really for a couple of things. 

Whatever you can say about him, in 2000, 1999, 1998, 1997, he had a balanced budget. He had a surplus. He was paying down the debt. Now, conservatives will tell you it was because Newt Gingrich forced him to cut, cut, cut.  He did, but he also gave in to an increase in the income tax. That was the big grand deal. 

And it worked. And they had a balanced budget. Had we continued on that we would have no national debt now. We would have paid it off. We wouldn’t be thirty-one trillion in debt.  

So you gotta give him credit for that.  

And I went back not too long ago, I wrote about in “The Dying Citizen,” but if you look at the charter of the ’92 Democratic Convention and the ’96 Democratic, and I think that was written by Mark Penn, maybe people listening will correct me, and Doug Schoen, with input from some other people. 

It’s a Republican … I mean, it says, “We want closed borders. We want legal-only immigration. We want juvenile murderers and violent criminals charged as adults. We want everybody to pay their fair share. We want to make sure people are not cheating on their income taxes. And we are for a strong defense.” 

And you know, he bombed—It was kind of a misadventure—but he bombed [Slobodan] Milosevic and got the Serbs out of Kosovo, seventy-seven days, without congressional authority, of course. 
 
Where he was faulted, he had numerous opportunities to stop, al-Qaeda and [Osama] bin Laden, and he passed up on them. 

He could have stopped it. 

The ‘Performance Art Joke’ at the Heart of the Democratic Socialist Movement

 

person 1: Everyone should notice, if you’re watching this on YouTube or Rumble, that over Victor’s right shoulder are the galleys of his forthcoming book “The Counterrevolution: The Fall and Rise of Donald Trump and the MAGA Movement,” which will be out on Sept. 8. You can go to Amazon and preorder it now. 

I always like the preorder. You order it and it’s pre-publication, but—and it’s the movement.  

person 2: [Donald Trump]‘s not a revolutionary. He’s a counterrevolutionary, Jack. He’s trying to upend the progressive project. The progressive revolution.  

person 1: Well, it’s a—  

person 2: He’s a Thermidor trying to stop the Jacobins.  

person 1: We won’t name names here, but to me, this has been the obvious fight, the size, the scope of the Left, the viciousness of it, the murderousness of it. And many on the right have been involved in circular firing squads too often, while the main enemy is, of course, the Left. But not to get off track. 

Go ahead, Victor. 

person 2: No, you’re right. The thesis of this new book is that, for all of the criticisms of his methodology and style, language, tweeting, I can’t think of another Republican president—maybe you can—who walled the border, nor … And he will finish the wall at the current pace, nor took on the Iranian nuclear bomb project, nor took on the trans issue, nor took on DEI, nor took on the, I guess you would call it, sanctuary cities project. 

I mean, it’s a real counterrevolutionary. I just talked today, Jack, with some House staffers about the Smithsonian. They’re going to be calling in the head of the Smithsonian. When I say they, I mean the Republican House leadership. 

person 1: Mm-hmm. 

And, yeah, people want to find out more about that, Victor. 

On the White House website, there is a link to the full, it’s about a 160-page report on the Smithsonian. 

person 2: I looked at part of it, and, I mean, these people want to rewrite American history as if it was completely evil and there was no self-critique, there was no open discussion, there was no back-and-forth, which there always was. 

There were no 700,000 people who died in a war over slavery. There was no women’s movement. There’s no reason they can explain why 12 million people broke through the border to get here from mostly third-world countries if it was so white and so evil. They can’t explain that.  

They can’t explain why the United States is the only really long-lasting democracy, why it lasted so long. 

They can’t explain anything. Why everybody wants to come here. We saw that with the World Cup.  

And then we had Hasan Piker yesterday addressing democratic socialists in a Mao Zedong suit, and he was listing all of the evils of the United States, and you want to say, “Wait, Mr. Piker. You don’t know anything about this country. You may have been born here, but you spend a lot of your time in Turkey in a very anti-American climate. But you’re wearing a suit that is a replica of the greatest mass murderer in not U.S., not European, in all of history.  

“Any historical framework you want to use, he killed 70 million people, and you’re trying to glorify him by emulation?” 

It makes no sense at all. What are you doing? And he had them all captivated, the audience. And then he went down off the podium, Jack, and with his Mao suit, and then he went into his Porsche Targa, you know, and maybe he, I don’t know, maybe he saw Ro Khanna’s wife coming by in her Range Rover. I don’t know. 

But these people are ridiculous. They’re not just evil, but they’re ridiculous. They’re absolutely absurd. These people enjoy every benefit, every fringe, every indulgence, every appetite of capitalism, and then they start this faculty lounge berating America, berating its economy while they emulate and brag about mass murderers. 

[California Gov.] Gavin Newsom was—we said the other day, you know, capitalism doesn’t work. It worked for you, Gavin. You got a $9 million home. 

person 1: Right. Yeah.  

person 2: Why don’t you open it up to the dispossessed who are the victims of capitalism? You can’t. And your businesses, I guess they’re called PlumpJack.  

To whom do they appeal? They appeal to capitalists of the upper class who can afford your fine wines and cheeses and your ambiance. And then you mock it? It’s all performance art. It’s a joke. It really is, these democratic socialists. 

person 1: I think the revolution is more here than we think it is, Victor. Before we get to Iran and Kuwait, which we want to talk about, since you raised it, Daniel Greenfield has this article. 

It’s titled “25 Million Communists in America.” And let me just read a chunk here. “Despite the countless millions dead at the hands of communist regimes, a significant portion of the electorate has a positive view of communism as a political movement. A recent Cato poll shows that more members of Gen Z, those born between 1997 and 2012, have a positive view of communism than those who have a negative view, with around a third splitting each way. 

“Some of this can be attributed to social media propaganda, the educational system, and popular culture, and helps explain the young activists flocking to the DSA. Forty-three percent of students rate communism favorably and only 29 rate it unfavorably, making it clear that the higher education system isn’t just broken, it’s actively recruiting the next generation into extremism, direct domestic terrorism, and totalitarian ideologies, etc.” 

Twenty-five million is not a small number.  

person 2: I will say that the white population in the United States is controversial because of mixed marriages and everything, but it’s estimated to be somewhere between 68% and 70%. The DSA’s membership list shows that 85% of the DSA members are white. 

So, what we’re talking about is not the upper-middle class. What we’re talking about is not a bunch of people in rural Texas or the Ozarks or Appalachia or here near Kings or Tulare County in the Central Valley of California. This is not a bottoms-up revolt of the masses over the inequities of capitalism. 

This is a movement fueled by the educated, the mostly white, and the rest of the 15%, whose public faces are mostly immigrants and mostly from failed states, as we said earlier.  

And it’s a frustration that they cannot have the consumer lifestyle and their appetites cannot be satisfied with the people they rub shoulders with every day in these environments in New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Boston, Dallas, etc., Austin. 

That’s what it’s about. And we’ll see if they win a statewide election as socialists. I’m not saying they can’t win if they do the waxen effigy Joe Biden, good old Joe Biden from Scranton. And maybe they can get their rogues’ gallery. They can get good old Graham Platner from Maine, the hardworking oysterman. 

They can get Tim Walz from Minnesota, the roly-poly change-my-own-oil-and-I’ll-figure-out-how-to-load-my-shotgun-in-a-year-from-now guy. And maybe James Talarico, the Bible-thumping evangelical, evangelicus from the lower white middle class. 

You can see that effort to find the elusive unicorn white man of the middle, of the working class, shows you that the agenda does not appeal to anybody. 

President Trump Sparked the Counterrevolution to End the Destruction of America

 

I’d like to speak today about revolutionaries and counterrevolutionaries. Whether we realize it or not, we’ve been in a progressive revolutionary cycle for about 50 years.

And by that I mean there has been the effort of most of the Democratic Party, and now the radical elements to accelerate that efforts as emblemized by the democratic socialists to take control of government, expand it, redistribute income so that many people in blue states especially are paying over 10% of their income, in addition to 38% of their federal tax or two or three percent in Obamacare tax and other add-ons.

And it’s not very difficult to pay 50% of your income or more for the taxpayer who’s salaried without much write-offs. And the welfare state, which has distributed over twenty trillion dollars since this started under the Great Society, is getting bigger and bigger, at least until Donald Trump.

And this progressive revolution doesn’t believe in borders. It has let in—we have now 53 million people that were not born in the United States, and in California, it’s over a quarter of the population. It’s all-time high percentage-wise, 16% foreign-born.

They don’t have confidence that you, the people, will buy into the progressive project. And so, they want to import a demographic that is poor and needy on the idea that they will be constituents that will trade their votes for subsidies.

And we saw that with the Somali community in Minnesota, and we’ve seen it with other communities here in California.

And so, the progressive project has given us a real revolution. We never imagined that there were going to be more than two genders or sexes. We never imagined that they would try to normalize biological men taking over women’s sports or dressing among young teenage girls. We never imagined that.

We never imagined that prosecutors would let out career felons who had committed violent acts the same day they were arrested. We didn’t know we were gonna empty the prisons because we felt that punishment, penal punishment was too mean.

We never really felt that our only real democratic country and ally in the Middle East, Israel, we would try to disassociate ourselves, and we would try to romanticize terrorists like Hamas.

But what I’m getting at, this was the progressive project. It was anti-American, it was anti-Western, and it glorified other modes of civilization, so to speak: socialism, communism, anarchism. And it was very critical of the very society who had enriched most Americans.

I say most—the middle class of America is the largest middle class in the world and the most affluent, and our poor are better off than most middle class and upper middle class in other places.

It’s important to remember that there has not been a counter-revolution. Ronald Reagan was the first and really last Republican president that had an economic counterrevolution. It was quite successful. He lowered the tax rate. He deregulated the economy, and by 1983-84, he was growing the economy at 7% GDP growth.

And then, of course, that was watered down in subsequent years. But the two Bushes, candidates like John McCain, Bob Dole, Mitt Romney, their agenda was to slow down the revolution, but not to try to overturn it.

What do I mean by slow down? Kind of advise Hollywood that they didn’t have to be so anti-American and have movies that talked about race, class, and gender ad nauseam. Try to tell professional sports not to be weaponized.

Try to tell K-12, calm it down a little bit. We don’t need sex education in the first grade, and there’s nothing wrong with a teacher occasionally giving a prayer that she inadvertently forgot was illegal.

Calm down. You don’t need to send the FBI to school board meetings, that kind of thing. We don’t need to take the knee at sports and ridicule “The Star-Spangled Banner.”

So, this revolution had infiltrated K-12, the corporate boardroom, the universities especially, the media, the foundations, and popular culture. But the Republican and conservative movement had just tried to slow it down.

And then came Donald Trump.

He was not—he’s surely not a revolutionary. We were in the middle of a revolution, but he was not a trimmer either. He was a true counterrevolutionary.

The first term, he was not familiar with Washington. He made appointments with people who did not agree with him—not just they did not agree with his methodology, but they didn’t agree with his counter-revolutionary agenda.

But it was still in places working. And what was the result? The result was COVID-19 and the COVID-19 lockdown, and it was aborted.

The second time he came around, he tried to finish the counterrevolution. So he pretty much demolished the subsidies for green energy and re-emphasized oil and gas production, and we became the greatest producer of oil and gas in the history of civilization.

He sort of said, “We’re not going to regulate AI and robotics, cryptocurrency, genetic engineering, drone. We’re not gonna legislate them out of business. We’re not gonna have antitrust and complete investigations of all these people. We’re gonna promote it. We’re going to promote these new innovations and new technologies.”

And lo and behold, we’re ahead of the Chinese in almost all of them now.

He didn’t just say, “I am worried about the military. It may be that DEI has discouraged a particular demographic that over generation after generation has provided the largest percentage of our combat units, namely white males.”

He did away with DEI. And what was the result? All of a sudden, we have met all of our recruitment figures.

He didn’t just say, “Well, the border’s been open. I know that we’ve let in 10 million people a year over four years. I know that 10,000 were coming a day under Biden. I understand that, so maybe I’ll say no more catch and release. Or maybe you have to apply for refugee status in, say, Mexico.”

No, no.

He said, “I’m going to finish the wall. I’m not gonna let anybody stop me. This time there’s going to be a wall, and we are going to deport people. We’re gonna deport a million people in my first year, and we’re gonna make sure a million others self-deport, and we’re gonna go after 500,000 with criminal records.”

He didn’t just say, “I am very worried about Latin America.

“Under [Barack] Obama and under [Joe] Biden, we saw a wave of left-wing governments, and the Panama Canal is in danger. Venezuela has the largest oil reserves really in the Western Hemisphere, if not the world, and they are exporting convicts and drugs to the United States.”

He didn’t just say that.

He went down there and basically threatened Panama that we would take over the canal unless they honored our Panama Canal treaty and expelled the Chinese from trying to control the entry and exits of the canal.

He said to [Nicolas] Maduro, “You better stop because you’re exporting terror and communism and bullying your neighbors.”

He didn’t, and he extradited him and ended that threat.

And now as we look at Ecuador, Peru, Chile, Bolivia, Argentina, El Salvador, Dominican Republic, I could go on, they’re mostly center right.

So, he staged a strong counterrevolution by reinforcing the Monroe Doctrine that had been rejected by the Left, and he made South America and Central America now a free market and, for the most part, a society that’s pro-American, with some notable exceptions.

For example, in Nicaragua, a beleaguered Daniel Ortega and a beleaguered Castroite government in Cuba that are both now for the first time in years isolated.

In addition to that, he made our allies stronger. He used unorthodox methods. He was the proverbial gunslinger who came in to help the townspeople who were ossified and couldn’t deal with the robber barons or the cattle barons or the outlaws, and then he cleaned up the town, and then they got tired of him because of his methodology and rhetoric.

But nonetheless, he said to our allies, “We’re not gonna be in NATO unless you’re real NATO members. You’re not NATO members. You’re not arming yourself. You’re not abiding by your commitments.”

Same held true to Canada. And lo and behold, now we have much stronger allies, and the alliance is stronger than ever.

What am I getting at? Donald Trump is not a revolutionary. He’s a counterrevolutionary.

And what is he trying to do? He’s trying to undo the entire half-century progressive project within four years. That’s an impossible task. And yet he’s trying to do it.

He’s the first authentic counterrevolutionary since Andrew Jackson.

Democratic Socialists Think America Is Somehow Worse Than Mass Murderer Mao Zedong

 

We’re hearing more and more from the Democratic Socialists of America about all of the sins of America and very little of the good things we’ve done to ourselves and to the world at large on our 250th birthday. 

What is it, the nature of this DSA, Democratic Socialists of America, and the diversity, equity, inclusion criticism that we were racist, sexist, nativist, cruel, ruthless, etc., etc.  

But my question is, compared to what? 

Mao Zedong? He killed 70 million people. He was the greatest mass murderer in history, and that government is still communist in an unbroken chain from [Chinese leader] Xi [Jinping] all the way back to Mao. Do we ever talk about that or the million people who are in concentration camps in China? 

Compared to historically to the Aztecs? We’re told the Aztecs were great people. They had an empire, but they crushed over a million people to create their empire. Some years, they sacrificed up to 10,000, maybe 15,000 a year of conquered tribes of fellow Indigenous people. 

Do we remember Shaka Zulu, the 19th-century creator of the Zulu nation? He was responsible for a genocide in crushing his enemies that probably cost over a million lives. 

Do we really think that the Native Americans were living in paradise until Europeans came? The story of Native Americans was conquest, enslavement, butchery of rival tribes. 

So, what is going on? 

We have a tradition in the West of self-criticism. That’s what makes us different. Rationalism, self-criticism, improvement. But when that goes to an extreme, it ventures from self-criticism and self-reflection to nihilism, and it’s quite destructive. 

So, let’s just take a look at where the United States is compared to the rest. 

Look at immigration. Why do a million people, or 2 million people, 10,000 a day under Joe Biden, from very poor countries, most of them from what we would call the former Third World that were victims of socialism, why do they risk their lives coming here every year? 

Why do all these critics of the United States … [Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez], why did her parents want to come here? Why did [Rep.] Ilhan Omar’s father want to come here? Why did [Rep.] Rashida Tlaib’s father want to come here? Why did [New York City Mayor] Zohran Mamdani’s parents want to come? Was it so bad? 

Can’t they ever acknowledge that they came here because they had greater security, they had greater freedom, they had greater economic opportunity? And if they had criticisms, it was never enough that they wanted to go back to the places that they praised, but only from a distance and in the abstract. 

The truth is that the poor in the United States are better off than most of the middle classes in every other country. We saw that in the World Cup when middle- and upper-middle-class Europeans came over, and unlike … to watch the games, and unlike most tourists, they didn’t just stick on the coasts. They went to places in Arkansas, Oklahoma, Texas, the South, and the Midwest. 

And they found two things. One, Americans were amazingly friendly and open, upbeat, not downers and drab, and everything’s terrible, which they expected from their experiences in Europe. 

And more importantly, they were affluent. They had big homes. They had air conditioning. the poor had appurtenances. Everybody has a cell phone. Nobody worries about the cost, apparently. 

There’s also then the hypocrisy of a lot of our critics. And let me just give you an example of a few of them. 

Hasan Piker is a child of very, very wealthy Turkish immigrants that became U.S. citizens. He grew up for much of his life in Turkey. He gave a talk the other day in a Mao suit to Democratic Socialists of America. Think about that. He put on the uniform, so to speak, of the greatest mass murderer in history, and then he denounced capitalism. 

But he didn’t denounce capitalism in his own life because his parents are multimillionaires. He is a multimillionaire, and he drives a, what? $120,000 Porsche. Isn’t that a luxury of the bourgeoisie? 

And then there’s Zohran Mamdani, of course. His family, as I pointed out numerous times, was the elite of the elite of the elite in Uganda, a community of expatriates, Indians, from India that control 60% of the wealth, and they’re only 1% of the population. 

And he grew up in privilege here. He had a very nice home. He has a family estate on Lake Victoria, of all places. 

Ro Khanna, the congressman from California, he always is pointing out the evils of Republicans, and as he looks at the drift of the Democratic Party, he puts his finger in the wind, and he says socialism is the answer. Ro Khanna does. 

But he’s a multimillionaire. His father-in-law is one of the wealthiest members of the Indian American community, probably worth $500 or $600 million. His own children have been deeded golf courses. His wife drives a $190,000 Range Rover, and he’s lecturing us about our shortfalls? 

And then, of course, we come to [California Gov.] Gavin Newsom. He wants to get in on the socialist craze, so he said the other day, as is his wont, moving his arms around and being very slick and glib, that capitalism fails. It didn’t work. 

It worked for you, Gavin. You have a $9 million home. You are the, basically, the quote-unquote, “protégé” of the Gordon Getty oil for- fortune, who backed all of your business opportunities. 

Graham Platner, the now-disgraced madman who thought he was going to be senator with a Nazi tattoo. He criticized capitalism. He said that, you know, he was drifting towards socialism, very critical of America. 

But he really wasn’t a small-business person. He was a construct. His mother and father, who were very wealthy, one owned an upscale restaurant, the other was a well-known, often corporate real estate lawyer. They set him up in business, and they were his only client, and they allowed him to have land to use. 

So, what I’m getting at is most of this criticism of America is not coming from the so-called poor. It’s not coming from the lower middle classes. It’s coming from elites in urban enclaves who have done very well with capitalism, and they feel that by mouthing these socialist and communist platitudes, it’s a way to get power within the Democratic Party first, and then within the United States second. 

And remember one thing, this is not new. Most of the violent socialist communist movements in history, whether we look at the anarchist of the late 19th century, or whether we look at the Bolsheviks of 1905 all the way up to the Russian Revolution of 1917, or we look at the revolutions of 1848 in Europe, especially the Reign of Terror, 1792 and 1793, when a bunch of very wealthy, this should sound familiar, socialists hijacked the French Revolution and turned it into a Stalinist-like murder spree. 

They all had one thing in common. They were very, very wealthy, and they hated the very system that had enriched them, and they wanted to try out a whole series of nihilist projects on whom? On the middle class and the poor, with the proviso that none of their ideology would ever apply to themselves. 

Changing Voting Laws Only Benefits the Left

 

person 1 Donald Trump gives a speech to the nation on the 2020 election and the involvement of our intelligence agencies and other bad actors and mayhem. Many of the networks did not carry it, disparaged it in advance, had to fact-check it, etc.

What’s your take on what Donald Trump said and your take on the spin or the intransigence of these liberal media—excuse me, leftist media elites?

person 2: Well, I don’t think it’s—I mean, we’ve got so many things right now with the budget and the SAVE Act and Iran. We’ve got great economic news on inflation. GDP is pretty good. I’m still worried about the deficit, but that’s another topic.

I don’t know. When you address the nation, maybe it would have been on Iran, or maybe it would have been on the good news from the economy.

But that election—I understand he wants to remind people so that they don’t do it the next time. But I think the whole MAGA emphasis on actual Election Day cheating—and now we hear from Markwayne Mullin that there are 1 million unregistered voters who got ballots.

person 1: He says there are 250,000 noncitizens registered to vote in four Democrat-run states.

person 2: Yes, four states. One million voters. That could have changed any of the swing states. They were illegal, and they knew it.

But the issue, I think, he should say is, “I’m not going to adjudicate 2020 because, by the time the ballots were cast, the system had been altered under the pretense of COVID.”

And now, what do I mean by that?

Then he could just go through the items that Molly Ball, in her triumphalist article—she’s a woman of the Left—bragged about. They changed the voting laws by going through lawsuits to district court judges and, in blue states, bypassing the legislatures.

What had traditionally been 30% absentee ballots was renamed and rebranded as mail-in ballots, and that became almost 70% nationwide.

Under the guise of COVID, they brought in rules that said you could register to vote without an ID or a driver’s license. They would give you an ID if you had—you could use a credit card, you could use almost anything. But if you didn’t have anything, they would give you a number, and then you could vote that same day. You could ballot harvest.

That changed, radically, the entire American electoral system in one direction—for the Left.

That’s what I wish he would concentrate on. I don’t know if it was legal or illegal, but the way they did it altered the way we voted.

If you look at population increases, there’s no way in the world that you would get so many people voting. More people voted in 2020 than in 2024. It was just outstanding. It was a sudden rise in voters.

We know now that Mark Zuckerberg spent $417 million to appropriate the work of election registrars in key swing states.

By that I mean he basically gave them all this money to put drop boxes all over their states that couldn’t really be accounted for, and money to sue to extend the acceptance of mail-in ballots—as here in California—for seven to 10 days, depending on the particular state, after Election Day.

So, it really ruined the system. It really did.

And we know it because Sen. [Elissa] Slotkin let the cat out of the bag when she was commenting on the SAVE Act. She said, you know, everybody’s going to have an ID. Everybody’s going to have to be preregistered. You still have a window where you can vote early if you wish. You can mail in a ballot, but it’ll be an absentee ballot. You’ll need an excuse like we used to.

Primarily, you’re going to be expected to show up at the polls, show an ID, and your name will be crossed off a list of previously registered voters. If you’re not registered that day, you’re not going to vote. If you don’t show up that day, you’re not going to vote.

And when she said, “Well, we can’t win elections like that”—that’s basically what she said. “We can’t … ”

Of course, she was right. They can’t.

So, that was the biggest piece of legislation, I think, that the Senate is dealing with. They’ve only got, what, 20 days before recess?

person 1: Hardly any time.

person 2: I don’t know why they’re not doing something about it. I know there are holdouts. Why don’t they go to Susan Collins or Lisa Murkowski or Rand Paul—whoever it is. I don’t think he’s with the opposition on this one. Just say to them, “What do you object to, and how can we work to get your votes and get this through?”

Yeah. And, you know, JD [Vance]—he is the head of the Senate.

person 1: He’s president of the Senate.

person 2: Yeah, he’s president of the Senate, and he breaks tie votes.

I think Kim Strassel wrote a pretty tough article about him. I know both JD and Kim, and I like them both. But she had a point. Time is running out, and you’ve really got to galvanize the senators.

They’re not that close. Trump is a different type of politician. You want the president of the Senate—your guy—to go camp out in the Senate and count votes every single day, then find out how many you need and what they want.

You don’t want to go on Joe Rogan, or something, pushing your book while you’re vice president at this particular time, when you have a recess coming up.

My point is, if I were vice president and I were to write a book, I would have timed the publication date to coincide with the August recess. Then I would’ve spent every single moment—20 hours a day—on that Senate floor and on the phone making sure you got this passed.

Otherwise, it looks like a complete disorganized mess.

person 1: Yeah. Kim’s Wall Street Journal op-ed begins: “Republicans were eagerly awaiting their Tuesday meeting with Vice President JD Vance, hoping he’d break Congress’s gridlock. They instead were notified of a scheduling conflict as Air Force Two winged to Texas.”

That’s where he went for the Joe Rogan Experience, where he bashed the Senate for its, quote, “procedural bull—-.”

And yes, he’s promoting a book.

Another tough article, along the same lines—and I think even stronger—came from Lee Smith in The Tablet. He compared Vance to Barack Obama. He also pointed out that Vance has now written a second memoir before even turning 45.

Very tough stuff, I think.

So, how much of it is deserved? I don’t know, Victor.

person 2: I don’t know either. But I do know this: Right now, we’re in a fighting mode in the Middle East. Israel is giving us targeting information, Iran is attacking us, and the Gulf States are not doing anything.

It doesn’t seem wise to say that Israel can’t kill its way out of its problem.

As soon as Trump turned his attention to the Lebanese government and said, “Hezbollah is the reason why Israel is there. So if you want Israel out of Lebanon, you have to work with us. Now that we’ve defanged Iran and they don’t have any money, now is the time. You’ll never have a better opportunity to get Hezbollah out.”

Israel said, “If you don’t send missiles into us, we will withdraw.”

So, given everything I just said, I don’t know why you’d say that our only ally can’t kill its way out of its problem. That’s what I don’t understand.

On Oct. 7, there were 5,000 people. They were not just Hamas. They were members of all those Palestinian radical terrorist groups that sent volunteers. There were also tag-along people who just wanted to go kill, rape, and torture Jews, and they all went in there.

Take away that attack, and we wouldn’t be where we are now. It’s very simple.

I don’t see why people can’t see that.

Instead, you wait three weeks. You don’t go into Gaza. You say to them, “Give us back the hostages. Give us the people who committed the murders.” They don’t do it.

Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Fauci, Pot

 

Tony Fauci is going to join his pantheon, just not the one he wanted.

Tony Fauci was asked a long time ago if the risk of a lab leak was worth the possible upside of gain-of-function virus research. He said that he did believe so. There are those who claim that Lyme Disease as well as SARS were also outcomes of lab research where things got out, and people got sick. Every activity in life involves risk. Some risks, like crossing the street or eating an egg, seem to be very low. Others, like flying a B-17 bomber over a ball-bearing factory in Schweinfurt during World War II, come with enormous potential downside. It would appear that Tony Fauci not only funded the Wuhan virus lab but may have contributed to the creation of the Frankenvirus via a lab run by him in the American northwest. So while other dictators listed above actually murdered people who opposed them, Fauci’s hubris and incompetence got millions of people killed worldwide. Does his lack of intent make him ineligible?

The problem with Tony Fauci and many others in the biomedical sphere is one of religion switching. A God-fearing person might make a different calculation of risk than one whose religion is SCIENCE and who sees himself as the personal embodiment of the high priest of this modern faith. A responsible and somewhat modest scientist would say, yes, I would love to know what would happen if we made the following changes to a natural virus, but I cannot take responsibility for the possible disaster that may occur. A megalomaniac like Fauci can only think about his future Nobel Prize and his name being said in the same breath with Einstein, Curie, and Salk. It’s easy to take risks when the risk is actually on somebody else. If I decide to weaken my fence, where the worst thing that can happen is that it falls on my neighbor’s daffodils, then I might be disposed to give it a try. Fauci talked big in Congress about gain-of-function being worth the risk and no doubt felt the same way with the completely untried mRNA vaccines because somebody else would get screwed if things went sideways — which they certainly did. The current head of the FDA, Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, whom Fauci trashed in his diary (and who the hell writes a diary on a government-issued computer? Duh?), said that there were three problems with the Pfizer and Moderna products:

1. We don’t know where the mRNA strands go in the body.

2. We don’t know how many copies of the spike protein they produce.

3. We don’t know if all of the spike proteins are complete or defective.

In his summary of the problem with injecting mRNA into a person and hoping for the best, he made more sense than cowboy Fauci, who pulled out hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin in order to allow for the emergency usage of the new vaccines. Fauci didn’t care if people got sick and died. He at one point admitted in his diary that vaccinated people were still getting sick and transmitting the virus. Fauci was the high priest! He will do as he pleases and he cannot be wrong! And if people die, as in any battle, victory does not come for free. He overstated the lethality of COVID, with its actual risk being similar to the annual flu. Lives were lost. Lives were destroyed. Businesses went under. Students went down the tubes. Societies went south. Just as the British still had war-damaged parts of the country in the early 1950s, we too have destroyed parts of society because Tony Fauci, the Bat Lady, and their friends decided that the real God wasn’t enough and that they would play god by making a natural virus more deadly to human beings. Fauci’s virus buddies immediately saw the engineered “furin cleavage site” that allowed for stronger binding to human cells, but like Hitler’s generals, they knew when to shut up and defer to the Great Man. Who wants to be selling newspapers on the streets when he can have endless NIH grant money and maybe some patent royalties for just saying that the pangolins are the culprit?

I remember reading a book long ago that discussed the diary of the camp commandant of Auschwitz, Rudolf Hoss. In one entry, he wrote that they had a morning selection of Russian prisoners whom they murdered. In the afternoon, he ate with his family, and they had a delicious meal of rabbit and wine. The author of the book could not understand the juxtaposition of outright brutality next to complete enjoyment of a lovely meal. But what of Herr Fauci? He could write at the top of his entry how many people died in various countries and then list all of the A-listers on a Zoom call arranged by Dr. Kim Kardashian. The numbers at the top were Stalin’s famous statistics: faceless people, many old and sick, who died alone, removed physically from their loved ones. The bottom was the real deal: I am Fauci I, king of biomedicine! These are my loving fans, and I shared with them my wisdom and godly insights. Long live Fauci!

In Hebrew, the expression “lo nisbal” refers to someone who is so into himself that nobody else can stand him. Tony Fauci took the Moderna vaccine on TV and then had a heart embolism. We have a tradition that Pharaoh used to enter the Nile to do his business so that his people would think that he is a god and does not need the bathroom; so too, Fauci did not announce his illness and its possible ties to the drug he was peddling. No, he quietly had himself treated, and like doctors around Hitler, they knew that they had best keep their mouths shut. The emperor has no clothes? The emperor has a blood clot, but nobody on the outside may be allowed to know.

Every field has its practitioners with massive egos. Boeing refused to admit that a fault in a cargo door would allow it to open during flight; only the engineer parents of a young man lost to such an accident could force them to admit and then redesign the door. The problem with Fauci was that his hubris was connected to the safety and well-being of several billion people. I can be a jerk and anger a couple hundred people. Fauci funded, through his buddy, gain-of-function research that got out of the lab, destroyed the world economy, and led to millions dead and injured. He sat like a fool in the Senate. He could not admit what he did, as maybe the pardon given by Joe Biden’s auto-pen is not as solid as he would hope. Also, it would be a killer for his reputation to confirm the evidence trail he left on his government computer diary. So he pleaded the Fifth on the color of his tie and what he ate that morning. Rand Paul might still get him via the DOJ for obstruction, though I don’t expect him to spend a night in jail.

We are generally enamored by things we know very little about. Someone outside of Boeing would be amazed by the company’s products and history. Go inside and see the cost-cutting-driven engineering failures. My business partner and I once did some Anthrax testing at an Israeli national lab. Our host brought out a vaccination strain to test. The day after our visit, he called to say that we had accidentally been working with live Anthrax. We had been sitting in his office, not in the Level 3 biolab down the hall. Accidents happen in science, and China is no place to expect Swiss lab protocols.

Why Corporate America Is Abandoning Legacy Media

 The announced separation of Comcast's cable news assets, including MSNBC and CNBC, should be viewed as more than another corporate restructuring. It is the latest step in a broader trend of major corporations distancing themselves from politically charged news businesses that once sat at the center of their media portfolios.

AT&T exited CNN through the WarnerMedia spinoff. Paramount transferred CBS News to new ownership through its merger with Skydance. Comcast has now separated MSNBC and CNBC from the rest of its media operations. Together, these moves suggest a growing realization that the prestige once associated with owning a major news organization no longer outweighs the business complications that come with it.

Ownership of a major news outlet once brought influence, status, and a powerful voice in the national conversation. Today, those same assets often bring political controversy, regulatory scrutiny, advertiser pressure, and reputational risk while contributing a shrinking share of corporate profits.

As Nielsen reports, audiences migrate away from traditional television toward streaming and digital platforms, executives increasingly prefer businesses with clearer growth prospects: broadband infrastructure, sports rights, entertainment franchises, streaming services, and technology. The restructuring of CNN, CBS News, MSNBC, and CNBC reflects a broader corporate retreat from legacy news organizations and the liabilities that increasingly accompany them.

For years, Wall Street has been sending a simple message: focus matters. Comcast's restructuring reflects a growing recognition that sprawling corporate empires often struggle to maximize shareholder value. Investors welcomed the move because it creates businesses with clearer missions, more accountable leadership, and greater potential to generate long-term returns.

That should always be the objective. Public companies exist because millions of Americans entrust them with their savings through retirement accounts, pension funds, mutual funds, and individual investments. Shareholders expect management teams to allocate capital wisely, grow the business responsibly, and deliver sustainable returns over time. Too often, companies have lost sight of that mission. In the media industry especially, news organizations became increasingly entangled in partisan and cultural battles that offered little economic benefit to their corporate parents.

Instead of focusing exclusively on innovation, operational excellence, and customer satisfaction, many executives expanded into areas far removed from their core business. They built large Environmental, Social, and Governance bureaucracies, embraced divisive political debates, and too often measure success by headlines rather than financial performance. 

The problem was never treating employees fairly or operating responsibly. Every successful company should do both. The problem came when executives confused corporate leadership with social leadership, directing shareholder resources toward objectives with little connection to building better products or creating greater value. Markets eventually correct those mistakes.

Over the past several years, investors have demanded greater capital discipline. Boards are asking tougher questions. Companies across multiple industries have reevaluated costly initiatives that produced little measurable return. The emphasis has shifted back toward execution, efficiency, and profitability.

Comcast now has an opportunity to embrace that shift. Separating MSNBC and CNBC allows management to focus more directly on the businesses that increasingly drive economic value while reducing exposure to the political and reputational risks associated with modern cable news.

NBC Universal should be judged by the quality of its programming, the success of Peacock, the strength of its film studio, and the experiences it delivers through its theme parks. Consumers subscribe because the content is compelling, not because of corporate messaging. Likewise, Comcast's connectivity business will succeed by expanding reliable broadband, improving customer service, investing in next-generation infrastructure, and competing aggressively in an evolving telecommunications marketplace.

Those are measurable objectives. Investors can evaluate them. Customers can experience them. The separation also creates something increasingly valuable: accountability. When businesses become too large and too diversified, underperforming divisions can hide behind stronger ones. Independent companies have fewer places to hide. Leadership becomes more accountable, capital allocation becomes more transparent, and strategic priorities become easier to evaluate.

None of this guarantees success. Both companies still face significant competitive challenges. But execution is exactly where management's attention belongs.

Corporate America succeeds when leaders remember that their first responsibility is building outstanding businesses: creating products consumers want, attracting talented employees, investing wisely, managing costs responsibly, and generating long-term shareholder value. Everything else is secondary.

Comcast's restructuring offers more than a new corporate chart. It offers an opportunity to recommit to the principles that made American business the envy of the world: focus, accountability, disciplined leadership, and respect for the shareholders whose capital makes growth possible.

It is unlikely to be the last example of this trend. Instead, it may represent another step in the gradual separation of politically charged news organizations from the diversified corporations that once viewed them as strategic assets.

If Comcast's next chapter is defined by those priorities, investors and the millions of Americans whose retirement savings depend on companies like Comcast will be the ultimate beneficiaries. I remain cautiously optimistic. Time will tell whether this renewed focus delivers the results shareholders have been waiting for.

The Unconstitutionality of the Democratic Socialists of America

 defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. I take that oath very seriously and understand defending the First Amendment freedoms of Americans to speech and expression.

However, when that speech and expression manifests itself in a philosophy of governance that intends to undermine our rule of law, our Constitution, and this Constitutional Republic, I do not support that as a freedom of speech or expression issue. I see that as sedition, at worst, treason. Therein lies the issue with the Democratic Socialists of America, an organization that boasts a membership of 120,000. They are free indeed to believe, as they do, in Marxism and its subsidiary economic and societal models, socialism and communism. But, according to their released 2026 platform, having them as elected officials is a threat to our Constitutional Republic and our representative democracy.

How is it possible to have individuals sworn in as Members of Congress when they subscribe to, advocate for, a platform that is the antithesis of our governing system as established in our Constitution, to which they are supposedly taking an oath? For that matter, how can we have individuals sworn in as elected officials placing their hand upon a Quran when that ideology is completely antithetical to our rule of law, as well as a book that calls for the death of "non-believers"? Perhaps that is a topic for another day.

The Founding Fathers of our Constitution—James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay—studied and read the works of French political philosopher Charles Montesquieu, namely his 1748 writing "The Spirit of the Laws," and applied his separation of powers theory in developing our governing system. This is just the same as Thomas Jefferson's studying and reading of John Locke's Natural Rights theory in framing our Declaration of Independence. I would offer that the authors of the DSA 2026 platform have certainly not read any of these foundational works that have created the longest-running Constitutional Republic that the world has known. No, they are students of a delusional failure of a man named Karl Marx, who wrote his Communist Manifesto in 1848, 100 years after Montesquieu's work.

The DSA rejects the ideals of a Republic and instead prefers what our founders never intended for our nation, a pure democracy. If these deranged individuals are allowed any say in our governance, they intend to destroy the concept of separation of powers and coequal branches of government, replacing it with a dictatorial entity of the House of Representatives, a singular body of Congress. They state that the U.S. Senate should be abolished, meaning that smaller states would have no equal representation in our Congress. This is their intent. The hypocrisy of their decrying concentrated power in Washington, D.C., while seeking to elevate concentrated power to the major population centers and states, is highly disconcerting.

As well, the DSA platform promotes abolishing the Executive and Judicial branches as established in the Constitution. What these Marxists propose is that their concentrated power branch appoint an executive and judges, meaning the end of coequal branches of government and the establishment of an authoritarian legislative body that will be reflective of one-party rule. There will be no system of checks and balances, just a Robespierre-like House of Representatives that rules rather than governs. There will no longer be an Electoral College where every state is competitive in a presidential election. The DSA rejects the idea of a President of the United States.

How can anyone accept this as anything but clear sedition and certainly unconstitutional? There can be no argument that the DSA 2026 platform destroys the Constitution of the United States. So, how does one get sworn in to support and defend the very rule of law that they want to eradicate?

The DSA platform and its unconstitutionality do not just end with the destruction of our three branches of government, separation of powers, and coequal branches of government. Ya know that stuff we used to teach in high school civics instead of leftist indoctrination bovine excrement.

The DSA 2026 platform goes on to advocate for the elimination of this Republic and its sovereignty. They demand open borders, meaning a violation of Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution, the "Guarantee Clause." When these Marxists speak of abolishing ICE, they speak of abolishing immigration law and enforcement; that is also Title 8, U.S.C. § 1325, which makes unauthorized entry into the United States a federal offense. As Antifa once chanted, "no borders, no walls, no USA at all." So, what does the DSA see America becoming? That is an easy question to answer: just a piece of land between Canada, Mexico, and three large bodies of water where anyone can enter. And as some DSA candidates have asserted, no illegal immigrant, including those who have committed further crimes, should be deported. That goes right along with ending the prison system, so there will be no consequences or ramifications for anyone breaking the law. Leftism is lawlessness at its ultimate.

We already know that these DSA members and political nominees want the defunding of the police and the elimination of the Second Amendment. I would suppose that the authors of the DSA 2026 platform have never read French economist Frederic Bastiat's essay "The Law," written in 1850, two years after Marx's Communist Manifesto. Bastiat articulates that it is the purpose of government, the law, to secure the life, liberty, and property of the individual, their natural rights. Instead, Marxists such as these DSA charlatans would use government for the sole purpose of subjugating the individual and, as Marx wrote, seizing their property. And if the law is defined by the Marxist ideological agenda, criminals run rampant, and the individual citizen is disarmed, what is the recourse? Yes, exactly what we saw happen in what was once one of the most prosperous nations in our hemisphere, Venezuela, after the rise of one Hugo Chavez. Someone whom American Marxists lauded and praised, no different from every other leftist dictator from Lenin to Stalin to Mao to Castro.

The most disturbing aspect of the DSA 2026 platform is that it calls for the elimination of the Department of Defense/War. The preamble of the Constitution of the United States lists the overarching tasks of the federal government: why it is being formed. One of those tasks is to "provide for the common defense" (which is why I prefer the name Department of Defense, because that is constitutional). The Marxists of the DSA wish to abolish that Department and leave our nation defenseless. Nothing could be more disturbing.

The DSA 2026 platform is in every way unconstitutional. The candidates who are therefore describing themselves as Democratic Socialists are truthfully Marxists and should not hold any elected position in our Constitutional Republic. Needless to say, in America, you are free to be S.O.S., "Stuck on Stupid." However, that does not mean we elevate you to a position where your insanity gives you authority over us if you do not believe in the foundations and fundamentals of our Republic.

There is only one response I have to the DSA 2026 platform: "y'all have identified yourselves as a domestic enemy of our Constitution, and as a result, of our Republic.

Steadfast and Loyal.

The World Is Becoming More Pro-American Than It Has Been in Years

 The world that we’re looking at today is radically different than that of just five years ago, radically different in the sense that it is much more in the interest of the United States. And I know that seems controversial because [President Donald] Trump is written off as someone who is too fluid and volatile.

His tweets, his verbiage, can put people off, but that’s the art-of-the-deal unpredictability of his nature. Some of it can be a drawback, some of it an advantage, but overall, it doesn’t help analysis to just look at what he says. It’s more important to see what he’s done.

Let’s go through the world abroad as it is today systematically.

Look at Latin America. Five years ago, the Chinese were controlling, through their surrogate companies, the entry and exit to Panama. Russia and China were the de facto rulers of Venezuela, with the second-largest oil reserves in the world. A slew of communist governments had taken over South America. Cuba was still defiant.

What’s happened now? There are no Chinese influencers in Panama. We have said that John Kerry was wrong. The Monroe Doctrine is not anachronistic. It’s very much alive.

There have been pro-U.S. changes in government in Venezuela, maybe not immediately yet, but there will be, as well as in Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Chile, and Argentina. That’s just a radical change.

In other words, the Western Hemisphere is now staunchly pro-U.S. and copying many of the protocols that we are, such as being tough on crime, free-market economics, secure borders, and ending illegal immigration. They’re not sending people out of insane asylums or mental hospitals or prisons into the United States.

It’s a radically different world.

Look at Europe. Five years ago, Europe had been jawboned by Donald Trump in his first term to at least spend 2% [on defense]. Only six nations did so. He jawboned them, he threatened them. Six nations did so.

Now, almost 30 of 32 nations have agreed to spend 2% of GDP. But more importantly, they have now all agreed to spend 5%.

Even the two free-riders that are most notorious, Spain and Canada—yes, they do not spend 2%, and Spain has defied NATO’s protocols and says it will not spend 5%. Canada, for all its self-righteousness, was running a $55 billion surplus with us. It was not patrolling its [southern] border as it should, and it was spending about 1.3% of GDP on defense.

Now it has pledged to spend not just 2%, but work its way up to the projected and desirable 5%. It’s working to reduce its surplus.

Spain has stopped all of this bellicose verbiage that it’s going to resist the United States. Why? Because Trump said, “Go your own way. We don’t need you, and we don’t want your products, and we don’t even want your NATO base. Just be happy and go off by yourself and create the Spanish Empire again if you want.”

It worked.

Spain said, “No, no, no, no, we’re a NATO member. You misunderstood us.”

So, if you look at Europe today, they are going to spend probably a half-trillion dollars in further defense readiness. And more importantly, they’re reexamining all of the things that weaken Europe.

This green mania. They’re going to bring back nuclear power, natural gas, and oil production. It won’t be rapid, and there’ll be resistance, but they know that’s the only recourse for them.

They’re going to secure their borders. They’re going to start deporting people from Europe.

In other words, Europe is going to be much stronger, and it will be more closely aligned with the United States, even though they might not say so.

Russia is not getting sanctioned oil from Venezuela or Iran. None.

There’s been a radical change in the course of the Ukraine war, partly because Donald Trump said all targets are up for grabs.

“Ukraine, I made my peace with [President Volodymyr] Zelenskyy, and if you want to hit refineries with your drones, go ahead. And, oh, by the way, we’re going to let you produce Patriot missiles. We’ll give you a license to do so, so you can protect your cities.”

Russia has lost its client in the Middle East, in Syria, and it’s probably at the weakest point economically, militarily, and industrially in the last 50 years, especially vis-à-vis the United States, where the economy is growing at almost 2.5% of GDP, and our military will now spend $1.5 trillion, almost 5% of GDP.

We’ve exceeded all of our recruiting targets.

The same thing is true of China.

China was creating an enclave in the Belt and Road agenda in Latin America. It’s out now. No toehold, no grip, nothing in Venezuela, nothing in Panama, no cheap oil.

It was importing 14 million or 15 million barrels a day. It can’t afford that at the current price. It’s down to 10 million barrels, and it can’t get cheap oil on the sly either from Iran.

Its defenses were shown to be shoddy when the Israeli Air Force destroyed Iran’s air-protective cover in about a day and a half. That was all Chinese- and Russian-supplied.

Its economy is in bad shape. Its idea that it was going to run up these trillion-dollar surpluses forever is over with, and it’s much, much weaker than it was five years ago.

What it sees in Ukraine is not reassuring, nor is what it sees in the Middle East, if it is considering invading Taiwan.

And then, finally, the Middle East.

Did anybody ever believe that Israel would be supplying missile defense to Arab countries in the Gulf?

Did any person ever believe that the supposedly indomitable, scary, terrifying, formidable Iran—93 million people with an unpredictable theocratic terrorist regime that had killed more Americans through terrorism than anyone since 9/11—would be dealt with and that its military, nuclear, and industrial complex would be neutered?

And that’s where it is today.

After it broke many of its protocols, I think we now are seeing the correct U.S. policy.

What Trump is going to do is, the first time they continue to hit us, he hits them back disproportionately—10 times more damage on them than they inflict.

The time is running out for them.

At one point, he’s going to take out all of the communications and transportation to China and Russia, either through the train tracks—he’s already blown up a rail bridge—or through the Caspian Sea.

He’s going to hit dual-use targets. He may hit generation plants, and Iran knows that.

So, I think the U.S. will say to them, “We’re going to do all this to you. You’re not going to be militarily capable for 10 or 20 years. You’ve lost a half-trillion. You wouldn’t want to be you. And, oh, by the way, we’ll have a vestigial number of ships.”

And they’re going to tell the Europeans and those in Asia, “This is your strait. It’s very critical to you, not to us. We’ll help you organize an effort to keep it open.”

So, what’s the common denominator?

Trump is very unpredictable. He has a very unusual style of diplomacy. It rankles people in the West.

He can be crude. He can be uncouth. He can tweet at three in the morning. He can say one thing on Monday and change his mind on Tuesday.

He says that he might like to invade or take Greenland, and all he was trying to say is that the Chinese and the Russians are going to use this base, as the Nazis did in World War II, because it’s undefended, and its colonial master in Europe—farther away from it than it is from us in North America—can’t defend it.

And therefore, the more I threaten, or am boisterous, the more they will invest and the more Europeans will take me seriously.

And indeed, they’ve spent a billion dollars, or pledged to spend a billion dollars, on the defenses of Greenland, and they have given us a base.

Same thing with Canada.

Prime Minister [Mark] Carney said, “Ok, OK, OK. Stop the 51st-state stuff, and we will make our 5% projections. We will make our 2% immediately. We will work on the surpluses.”

Because he’s unpredictable, and that can be a drawback, as we’ve seen, we’ll leave it to historians to assess whether all of these triumphs he’s achieved overseas were negated by the lack of goodwill or the damage to bilateral relations.

I don’t think that will be the case, but historians will adjudicate that.

But the point I’m making is that the world is much more in the interest of the United States than it was five years ago, and most of that is due, excuse me, to the unpredictability of Donald Trump.

Why Mamdani Wants to Erase Europeans From New York’s Immigration History

 person 1: Bill Jacobson, my pal—I love Bill. He’s the founder of Legal Insurrection.

He’s just a great guy. He posted this on X about this New York City immigrant enclaves map put out by the Mamdani administration, which said something like this had already been put out by the prior mayor.

But Bill says, “Understand what’s going on here. It’s to erase European heritage in New York City. Children will grow up thinking New York City was created by the Third World. It’s symptomatic of what has happened in our education system.”

So infamously here, there’s no Little Italy. New York has five boroughs—The Bronx, Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, and Staten Island—and each of them has their Italian enclaves, but you won’t find a Little Italy in any of them.

No.

The huge Irish community that’s still in New York City—I grew up in one, Woodlawn—it’s not there. But you’ll find Little Tibet, Little Bangladesh, Little Ecuador, Little Guyana, Little Manila, Little Odessa, etc.

So, person 2r, two things. Is Bill right? Is this part of the willfulness? And while it’s fine to have ethnic neighborhoods, is this also anti-E pluribus unum in some way? Your thoughts.

person 2: Yeah, oh, it is. But you’ve got to remember that this guy, [Zohran] Mamdani, is not a modest person. Most people would think it was a fluke that he got elected to the greatest city in the world, but that’s not how he thinks. He thinks this is a stepping stone to much greater, wider things.

And so, he is talking globalist all the time. He weighs in on global issues—Israel, the Palestinians, Iran. Mamdani says he’s going to arrest Netanyahu when he steps foot in New York.

In this globalist vision, he wants to get on record that his city is just a conglomeration of all these different nations in the world, with one asterisk: In his world, immigration really didn’t start until 1965. European immigration, thanks to Teddy Kennedy’s immigration reforms, ended, and immigration from the former British Commonwealth—New Zealand, Australia, etc.—declined.

We instead took people from what we used to call, and I don’t know if it’s a dirty word or not, the former Third World.

So, he thinks the world was started then. When he talks about immigrants, he doesn’t mean the hardworking Italians. He doesn’t mean the hardworking Jews. He doesn’t mean the hardworking Irish, all of whom came in enormous numbers and all were very poor.

And they built the country.

He thinks only the people—when he says immigrants built this country, that’s kind of a racist thing, because he’s only talking about people who are non-European. That’s what he means.

And this country was, basically, with black people making up about 10% of the population, about 85% of the population White, and about 5% Asian and 5% Hispanic for most of its history until about 1965 or 1970.

So, he’s wiping all of those people out, and he’s just saying that people like himself—the Indian diaspora, the South American diaspora, the African diaspora—these are the real immigrants who built America. That’s what he means.

He’s an Orwellian figure. He really does want to use language and communication to wipe out large areas of knowledge. He thinks that by making maps like this …

This map could have come right out of “1984”. It doesn’t exist, everybody. There is no Jewish community. There is no Italian community. There is no Irish community. Oh, you object? I must have forgotten. I’m sorry.

That’s how he operates.

He’s one of the slickest, slyest politicians, with that sly socialist smile that you’ll ever see.

The difference is that these other communities that came here—their ethnic pride, their ethnic identities, or their national identities—were incidental, not essential, to being American. They were essentially Americans.

They would have never taken a flag of Ireland or Italy and waved it while burning an American flag, like we see with the ICE demonstrations in Los Angeles.

They would have never rooted against the American team because a visiting team from Ireland or Italy was playing. They would have never rooted against the American team and championed their former country, like we see with every soccer match that comes to the LA Coliseum.

person 1: Yeah.

person 2: So, that’s the difference.

person 1: You know, Charlie Gasparino—I’m friends with Charlie. He’s a business columnist and writer for the New York Post, and I think folks see him on Fox every once in a while. He has a piece in the New York Post, maybe yesterday or today.

Charlie’s an Italian American from the Bronx, like me. He points out these were not victim cultures. The Italians never played the victim card. The Irish didn’t either.

And of course, I didn’t mention at the beginning that New York City had one of the largest—if not the largest—Jewish populations outside of Israel, over a million people. Where’s Little Israel on this map?

person 2: Yeah.

Another thing I really resent when you bring that up is that in the Mamdani-Obama-AOC line of thinking, there was all this prejudice against people only because of their color, and this was supposedly unique.

No, no. There was prejudice—maybe not based on color—but based on language and stereotypes, as there always is with a majority culture.

This country was a majority English-speaking nation up until about 1840. The first big wave was the Irish Potato Famine, and then almost simultaneously came the Germans.

You could make the argument that by 1860 the largest minority in the United States was German-speaking, and that remained true until almost 1900.

Lincoln was asked why he had a couple of German-speaking generals with German names, and he said, “I have to because the German constituency wants some representation as generals.”

My point is there was an enormous amount of prejudice.

There were op-eds that literally asked, “Are the Irish human?” Remember those? They said the Irish were small, they supposedly, like I have, had monkey eyes or strangely shaped heads, and they were tiny people, and there was a lot of discrimination.

Then, as you know better than I do, the presidential slogan, “We’re against Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion.”

person 1: Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion, yeah.

person 2: Yes. The idea was that we let in all these people that are Catholics, and they were anarchists and drunks.

The Italians dealt with the stereotype that every Italian was a criminal or from Sicily—a mafioso.

So, there was a lot of prejudice.

Yet these people came long before the latest waves of immigration. They came, in relative terms, prior to 1965—in the ’70s, ’80s, and ’90s—they were much poorer in material terms. They had nothing.

Today’s immigrant comes with a cellphone, sneakers, and a whole basket of entitlements.

Forty-five percent of the U.S. budget is spent on some type of welfare assistance.

There was none of that then. None.

So, I think we have to remember that this country was built by immigrants—but it’s not just the immigrants on Mamdani’s map.