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.

Blue States Are Betting Your Life on Illegal Truck Drivers

 

person 1: Twenty-one states and D.C. sue Trump administration to protect illegal alien drivers from the feds. This is from RedState.

So, 21 states and D.C. are effectively telling the Trump administration that they are more concerned about protecting the identities of illegal aliens than keeping American drivers safe on the roads. That’s the conclusion one can draw from stunning new lawsuits filed to keep the Department of Transportation from obtaining the identities of illegal aliens who have obtained commercial driver’s licenses.

Two lawsuits filed on Thursday, that’s a week ago from the day this particular episode is airing. Two lawsuits filed challenge the federal demands for Commercial Driver’s License Information System, CDLIS, records containing driver names, dates of birth, license numbers, and Social Security numbers, etc.

, that’s my state of Connecticut, your state of California, and 19 others, are just cool and dandy with these lunatics on the road. Your thoughts, Victor?

person 2 Yeah, well, I mean, I’m not a good person to talk to because we just drove back on Friday, the 200 miles from Stanford to Selma, and I can tell you that it is very, very scary to see the professionalism of the truck driver decline to such a degree because, I mean, when that truck, truck is in the right …

Part of it is the infrastructure of California under [Gov. Gavin] Newsom is so ossified. He didn’t do anything to improve it, and it’s Third World-like.

But when you see that truck driver go in the left lane, he doesn’t look at his rearview mirror to see who’s behind him. His theory is, “I’ve got 20 tons and nobody’s going to mess around with me.” And they just pull out, and then they get in the left lane, and they decide how many trucks they want to pass at 65 or 70. Forget the 55-mile limit. No one follows that anymore. And just keep going down the left lane until traffic, you know, that wants to go 80, I guess.

Now what they’re doing, Jack, is that, and maybe some of our listeners in California have noticed, they have screens, and they pull down on the side, you know, so you can’t look in at all. If you’re in a pickup or an elevated SUV, you can’t see who the driver is, so you have no idea.

On Aug. 8, we were driving back from Northern California and we, excuse me, from the Sierra, and we were cruising along making perfect time, and we were only 4 miles from home, and we passed the last exit before our exit, so we couldn’t get off, and the entire 99, three lanes, was just stopped for two hours on Aug. 8.

And we came in about 11:30. It had been stopped since 8:30. It was backed up 5 or 6 miles. It stayed stopped till 10 at night, 10 at night. And apparently, a truck driver with two big trailer tankers with a total of 8,000 gallons of gas was just driving along fast, saw a small box truck parked in the right lane where it had broken down, and he either tried …

He either was changing lanes back into the right, no one … The initial reports were he was changing lanes and not attentive, but he hit it. It was clear off the side of the road, and his truck exploded. He wasn’t hurt, and we had this toxic black plume, plume, flume or plume, either one, all over Selma.

And that traffic, it cost people 12, 15 hours on the main lateral north-to-south route in the center of the state. And to this day, they won’t tell you who the driver was. It’s just a complete news blackout. They won’t tell you who was culpable. News blackout.

California has sent down apparently an order that if there is a truck driver and the news people have not got to the scene and interviewed him, we are not going to release the information. At least we’re not going to release it in a prompt manner, even though it’s a public highway and even though the employees are public.

Because I think it could be, I’m not saying, I’m not suggesting it was someone who was not authorized to drive or got one of these pseudo licenses, but it’s very dangerous.

And when these states do this, they’re basically telling their population, “We’re taking a gamble with your lives because we’re going to play the odds because our virtue-signaling sense of self-guilt is more important than your collective safety. So we don’t want to know that we force poor little illegal aliens who are driving without properly qualifying on a driver’s test. We don’t want to impair their future or their careers, but we’re willing to risk your safety.”

That’s what it is. Simple as that.

person 1: Nearly half the states in America are essentially pro-criminal.

person 2 Yeah, they are. And we’re willing to take some collateral damage because we’ll get more media play that we’re morally superior to everybody than we will be culpable for the lives that these drivers have and will take in the future.

And it is scary when you see, when you get on an interstate in California or an intrastate, and you know that 60 years ago they promised there would be three lanes in each direction, and there’s still two. And you see a truck on the left and the right, and that truck doesn’t feel like it’s doing anything wrong. And they’re just plowing down at 65 to 75 miles an hour.

And you see all these drivers trying to cut in front of you to get around this obstacle. And then you look at how they drive, and when they have two trailers, the other one looks like the tail of a fish. It just goes back. Right. It wiggles, or a dog wiggling.

And at that speed, they don’t have any idea about speed, calibration …

person 1: Physics.

person 2 Physics, yeah.

They don’t have that 10 years of driving 20 tons. They don’t know the history of driving. They don’t know the protocols. They don’t know the language. And so, they do crazy things like flip U-turns or miss an exit and then back up on the shoulder to see if they can still get out after they’ve passed it.

And they don’t signal when they switch lanes, or they stay in the left lane as if they own it. Or I’ve seen now three lanes on the 99 where they’re in all three lanes for a particular time, for 5 or 6 miles.

And I go to rest stops, and when they come in, they’re of all different nationalities, and they don’t speak English. They speak native languages. I’ve at least seen they speak in an Indian dialect, Punjabi dialect, Chinese, Spanish, you name it. But they don’t, you know, they don’t seem …

person 1: Yeah. When I was driving down to see you a few weeks ago, there were some billboards, more than one, that were trucker-related that were, I’m pretty sure, Sikh. The language was …

So, the amount of these drivers just in California alone has got to be massive.

person 2 I don’t understand that because allegedly 30% to 40% of the truck drivers are Sikh immigrants. But the Sikh community is a very law-abiding, very successful community. It emphasizes, as I said in the case of [Zohran] Mamdani, if you look at all faiths and ethnicities of India, the census says Indian Americans are the highest-income ethnic group in the United States.

So, they’re very affluent. They’re highly educated. I don’t know why they would be protective of illegal Sikh, if that’s who it is, and Punjabi drivers coming through Mexico to get across the border illegally or overstaying a visa who don’t speak English and then put people at risk because they were able to finesse a driver’s test given that California waived the requirements for illegal aliens, apparently.

And then they would not join … You know what I mean?

I only say that because they signed a petition. Do you remember that?

person 1: Mm-hmm.

person 2 The Sikhs of Canada and the United States suggesting that what I’m saying right now was somehow culturally or racially insensitive.

But it isn’t, because they’re endangered too on the roads.

person 1: Right.

person 2 And so, it’s not aimed at any one group. It’s aimed at the idea of allowing someone here illegally who doesn’t speak the language and did not pass an authentic test to be let loose on the public with a dangerous machine.

Opposing Democrats Is a Literal Matter of Life and Death

 

Every election season (and election seasons are getting longer and longer), we hear from Democrats about just how wonderful Medicare, the health insurance program for the elderly and disabled, is. It’s so amazing that they want to destroy everything that currently exists and replace it with this entitlement for everyone. To the average person, especially a leftist trained to look to government to take care of them, this sounds great – who doesn’t love Medicare? Well, me, for one, and a lot of people who know how it actually works. As you watch Democrats across the country campaign on this issue, maybe try to ask them about just a few of the obvious problems with Medicare they don’t want you to think about.

In this discussion, you have to put aside the cost. Medicare is going broke, and so is the country. “Medicare for All” is, in part, an attempt to extend its life. If you go from 66-ish million enrollees to 350 million premium-paying people (who don’t have any other option but joining), there will be a major influx of money that will, temporarily and mostly on paper, look pretty good. But doctors won’t be able to afford their entire practice, as Medicare “reimbursements” – code for what the government will pay for any given procedure – are, oftentimes, less than the cost to deliver the service.

Who could stay in business where everyone pays less than it costs for a good or service? No one. And if government pays more, the program costs more. The death spiral starts slow, but it is always steady.

This, of course, is just 15 years after Obamacare promised to end the uninsured problem and save every family $2,500 a year in premiums. Neither came remotely close to happening and were never really expected to – Democrats were the car salesman telling you the Corvette will get you chicks, knowing full well your balding, 200 extra pounds self could barely fit in the car.

You don’t get to change one part of an equation and have no effect on the rest of it; that’s not how life works.

More than that, however, is the simple fact that if Medicare is so wonderful, why does it require supplemental insurance? Unless you’re enrolled in Medicare, you have no idea how it works.

To get your Social Security, which you’ve also paid into your whole life, you have to enroll in Medicare Part A. Meaning that if you have insurance you like, the feds make you give it up – coerced enrollment – in order to get the money everyone pretends is in your account. Something wonderful and popular wouldn’t need to do that.

When you get there, you still have to pay premiums, which takes up a bunch of your Social Security money. Then you have to get Medicare Part B. Part A covers your hospital care, but you hopefully won’t be spending your time in the hospital, so the rest of your medical care is covered by Part B. Both of these “plans” pay only a portion of your costs, which is why you need the additional supplemental insurance, as those costs add up.

Suddenly, you’re paying a lot of money for something that’s “free.”

Oh, and if you want prescription drug coverage (and you do), you have to sign up for Medicare Part D, which is even more premiums. Then you just have to hope the government has chosen whatever prescriptions you may need to be worthy of inclusion in your plan so you can get them; otherwise it’s out of pocket or something else you must hope works as well.

Sounds like Utopia, doesn’t it?

The only thing single payer Medicare for All does is give politicians and bureaucrats complete control over your existence. From the cradle to the grave, what care you can get will not be determined by you and your doctor, but by elected and unelected people to whom you are a number in a spreadsheet. True, private insurance is not perfect, but you and your doctor can appeal their decisions and bring public pressure through media, and political pressure by contacting your Congressman, to change their decisions. When it’s the government standing in your way, who do you appeal to?

The answer is no one.

There’s a reason the world’s rich come to the United States for their healthcare, fleeing their single-payer systems when they get seriously ill. There’s a reason busloads of Canadians come to the United States for cancer treatment rather than wait in line and die in their “free” system.

What none of these leftists will tell you is, sure, socialized medicine is great…unless you get really sick. Have the flu, you can get a shot. Break your arm, you can get it set. Find a lump…get in line, and in six to eight months you’ll be able to meet with a specialist to see how best to begin the process of starting some kind of treatment. Provided, of course, you live that long, and it’s not too late by then to do anything about it.

The ultimate price control in healthcare is rationing care. No one wants to admit it, but that’s how it works. Slow-walk care and see who lives long enough to get it. The percentage is low.

But, they say, the overhead for Medicare is “Waaaay cheaper” than in the private sector, and that’s how we can save money – the efficiency! Ever known a government agency to be efficient? Medicare forces the doctors to do the paperwork – the push it off on them. Think of how efficient you could look on paper if you could force others to do your work.

Literally nothing they tell you is true or the whole picture. But once you’re in, they’ve got you.

This is why the filibuster is so important. Yes, without it Republicans could pass a lot of things, but Democrats would easily repeal them when they were in power and replace them with liberal priorities. The difference is the damage liberal policy priorities do is irreversible.

If Democrats destroyed the private health insurance market completely by making it illegal, then Republicans regain control and make it legal again, what do you think would happen? I can tell you the answer is nothing. Nothing.

The health insurance system in this country is very complex because of all the government interference – state and federal regulations, etc. Democrats would wipe it out, putting every company out of business. No one, no matter how rich, would invest in rebuilding something that would take years to do, knowing that Democrats could come back in at any moment and wipe it out again. Like life, once you wipe out the freedom in healthcare, it is gone – you only get one shot.

The government’s interference can be rolled back while the market still exists, and it should be, but once it’s gone, it is gone. That’s why we can’t let this happen, no matter what, by any means necessary. And those means start with voting against every single Democrat anywhere you find them on the ballot this fall, and every fall thereafter.

Democrats have never been more dangerous; we cannot allow them the literal power of life and death over everyone because we know what they’d choose.

25 Years Later, They Already Forgot

 

September 11 isn’t supposed to be a normal day on the calendar.

Not in America.

And certainly not in New York.

Nearly 3,000 people were murdered that morning. Husbands went to work and never came home. Wives boarded airplanes they never got off. Children went to school and spent the rest of their lives missing a parent.

Twenty-five years later, September 11 still isn’t history to those families.

It’s personal.

And there was a time when presidents understood the particular weight of this day.

George W. Bush certainly did. Whatever else anyone thought of his presidency, September 11 was never just another square on his calendar. He understood what had happened, who had done it and why.

Donald Trump understands that too.

In between, something changed.

Barack Obama increasingly spoke about September 11 and Islamist terrorism through the lens of America’s treatment of Muslims. His administration seemed far more comfortable warning Americans about Islamophobia than it was confronting the ideology that had actually produced the attacks.

And that wasn’t occurring in a vacuum. During the Obama years, America’s political conversation about immigration, refugees, Islam and assimilation changed dramatically. Michigan and Minnesota changed with it.

I thought much of Obama’s Iran policy worked against American interests too. Different issue, same instinct: extraordinary concern about offending the people America needed to confront, considerably less concern about the Americans asking why.

Twenty-five years later, look where that political evolution has taken us.

New York.

The city where it happened.

A city whose skyline still bears the scar.

And now the Democrat governor of New York and the Democratic mayor of New York City are being asked by retired Port Authority police officers to stay away from Ground Zero on September 11.

How in God’s name did we get here?

John McDevitt, president of the Port Authority Retired Police Association, has asked New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani and Gov. Kathy Hochul not to attend the 25th anniversary ceremony at Ground Zero.

Read that again.

Retired police officers are asking the governor of New York and the mayor of New York City to stay away from the September 11 memorial.

Thirty-seven Port Authority police officers died that morning. Forty-seven members of the Port Authority family were lost altogether.

McDevitt isn’t asking for another political fight. He’s asking for the opposite.

In letters to Hochul and Mamdani, he asked them to let the families, survivors and first responders remember without turning the day into another political spectacle.

“Please allow us to remember in peace.”

That’s the request.

And I can’t get past the fact that somebody had to make it.

Hochul managed to infuriate some in the 9/11 community when One World Trade Center was illuminated for Muslim American Heritage Month.

The objection wasn’t to Muslim Americans having a heritage month.

It was the building.

Of all the buildings in all of New York.

Ground Zero.

The place where Islamist terrorists murdered thousands of Americans.

You really couldn’t find another one?

Apparently even asking that question is enough to get you accused of Islamophobia.

Hochul isn’t backing down. Her office says she’ll proudly stand alongside 9/11 families at the anniversary ceremony.

But some of those families are asking her not to.

Maybe listen to them.

Then there’s Mamdani.

A petition opposing his attendance at the ceremony has reportedly attracted more than 95,000 signatures. It was launched by Giovanni Galante, whose wife Grace was killed on September 11.

Think about that.

A man who lost his wife that morning is asking the mayor of New York City not to come.

Mamdani says he’s coming anyway.

And that’s what feels so different now.

There was a time when the politics stopped at Ground Zero.

The site wasn’t supposed to belong to Republicans or Democrats. It belonged to the dead, their families, the cops, the firefighters, the construction workers, the people who ran toward those buildings while everybody else was running away.

Some things were bigger than politics.

Or at least they used to be.

Twenty-five years is apparently enough time to forget.

We’ve spent the years since September 11 becoming increasingly uncomfortable with saying plainly what happened that morning.

It wasn’t a tragedy in the abstract.

It wasn’t a collection of airplane crashes.

It wasn’t the consequence of some terrible misunderstanding between cultures.

Nineteen Islamist terrorists hijacked four airplanes and used them as weapons to murder Americans.

That’s what happened.

We knew it on September 12.

We didn’t need a seminar to understand it. We didn’t need a sensitivity consultant. We didn’t need somebody from academia explaining that acknowledging the ideology motivating the murderers might hurt somebody’s feelings.

We buried our dead.

And we knew who killed them.

Somewhere along the way, that clarity became unfashionable.

Political leaders became more worried about accusations of Islamophobia than about confronting Islamist extremism. Universities became increasingly comfortable treating America as the villain in practically every story. And New York politics moved far enough left that ideas that would have been politically radioactive in the years immediately following September 11 now barely raise an eyebrow.

Look at where we are.

The mayor of the city attacked on September 11 is facing a petition from tens of thousands of people asking him to stay away from Ground Zero.

The governor is being asked by retired Port Authority officers to do the same.

And the people making those requests include men and women who actually buried somebody because of what happened there.

Maybe they’re trying to tell us something.

I’ve watched the Democrat Party change over the years.

I remember when Democrats were mostly people with different ideas about how to help the poor.

Their policies usually didn’t work.

But I understood the argument.

This is something else.

A political movement increasingly afraid to say the words “Islamist terrorism” while portions of its own coalition flirt openly with ideas that are hostile to American law, American institutions and, in some cases, America itself.

And now we’re having the argument at Ground Zero.

That’s what gets me.

Ground Zero.

There are approximately eight million other places in New York City where politicians can conduct their ideological experiments.

Leave this one alone.

Because September 11 belongs first to the people who never came home.

It belongs to the firefighters whose photographs still hang in firehouses across the city.

It belongs to the police officers who walked into hell.

It belongs to the children who grew up without mothers and fathers.

It belongs to people like Giovanni Galante, who has lived twenty-five years without his wife.

They don’t owe politicians a backdrop.

They don’t owe anybody a lesson in tolerance.

And they certainly shouldn’t have to beg elected officials to understand why this particular piece of American ground is different.

Twenty-five years ago we promised we would never forget.

I don’t think the families forgot.

I don’t think the cops forgot.

I don’t think the firefighters forgot.

I don’t think the people who watched those towers fall forgot.

But some of our political leaders apparently became so determined to move beyond the lessons of September 11 that they moved beyond the memory of it too.

The retired Port Authority officers aren’t asking for much.

One day.

One place.

No politics.

“Please allow us to remember in peace.”

They’ve earned that.

Let them.

Iran’s D-Day Has Begun

 Iran has spent months threatening the world over the Strait of Hormuz.

Don’t cross us. Don’t challenge us. Don’t ignore our rules. Don’t cooperate with the Americans.

Or else.

Well, the ships are moving.

That’s the part Tehran can’t explain away.

Traffic through the Strait of Hormuz has begun recovering despite Iran’s threats, even as the regime announces new penalties for vessels that refuse to play by its rules. Some ships are using routes Iran doesn’t recognize. Others are sailing with their transponders switched off, making the precise traffic picture difficult to measure. But the larger point is becoming harder for Tehran to hide: intimidation isn’t working the way it used to.

Iran, naturally, is handling this with all the composure you’d expect.

Mohsen Rezaei, the regime’s new security chief, warned that countries cooperating with America’s economic campaign could be treated as committing an “act of war.” Tehran is also threatening retaliation against neighboring countries and economic interests if they help Washington tighten the screws.

Threats. More threats. And then some threats about the previous threats.

Here’s a thought.

Maybe they’re nervous.

Because while Tehran is busy telling everybody what terrible things it might do, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent is preparing to tell the world what the United States actually will do.

Bessent calls it an “economic D-Day.” He says the administration intends to marshal America’s financial power to isolate Iran and force countries still doing business with the regime to make a choice. Keep financing Tehran, or maintain access to the world’s most important financial system.

That’s not another bomb run.

It’s potentially more painful.

Iran needs money. The regime needs oil revenue. The IRGC needs resources. Terrorist proxies don’t operate on good intentions. Missiles aren’t free. Neither are drones, weapons programs, internal repression, or the sprawling security apparatus required to keep an increasingly unhappy population under control.

Follow the money, and eventually you find the regime’s oxygen supply.

And right now somebody is stepping on the hose.

The Iranian rial opened Monday at roughly 2.02 million to the dollar on the informal market — another record low.

Two million.

Let that number sit there for a second.

China remains Iran’s most important oil customer, and that’s where this gets especially interesting. Reuters reports Iranian exports to China fell to an estimated 534,000 barrels per day in August, down from 823,000 in July. Washington has already targeted smaller Chinese refiners and is increasingly forcing the question Beijing would rather avoid: how much economic pain is China prepared to absorb for the privilege of keeping Tehran afloat?

That’s the ballgame.

Not another speech at the United Nations. Not another European diplomat announcing that everyone had a very productive meeting. Not another Iranian official threatening Armageddon before lunch and asking for negotiations after dinner.

Money.

Take away enough of it and eventually the regime has to choose what it can still afford.

Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian has acknowledged the economic pressure his country faces even as other regime officials insist the new American campaign is an act of desperation.

Both things can’t really be true.

If America’s economic pressure is meaningless, why threaten countries that cooperate with it?

Why warn Gulf neighbors?

Why rage against sanctions that supposedly won’t work?

Why all the noise?

Because Tehran understands what’s coming.

None of this means Iran suddenly becomes harmless. Quite the opposite. A wounded regime with the IRGC still at its disposal can be exceptionally dangerous. Iran has spent decades using terrorism, proxies, and regional intimidation as instruments of state power. Nobody should expect the men running that system to discover humility because their currency is collapsing.

Desperate regimes do desperate things.

So watch them.

But don’t rescue them.

That’s the mistake Washington has made too many times: apply pressure, watch it begin to work, become frightened by the consequences of success, and then offer Tehran an escape hatch before the pressure finishes the job.

Not this time.

Bessent is promising the toughest economic isolation campaign yet, aimed not merely at Iran but at the foreign buyers, banks and commercial networks that allow the regime to keep functioning.

Good.

Iran’s leaders have spent years telling the world that they control the Strait of Hormuz.

The world believed them because they could make shipping companies afraid.

Now the ships are beginning to move again.

The rial is collapsing.

Oil revenue is under attack.

And Iran’s leaders are threatening practically everybody within shouting distance.

Funny thing about power.

When you actually have it, you usually don’t have to spend this much time telling everyone you do.

Iran wanted the world to believe it owned the Strait of Hormuz.

This week, the ships themselves started saying otherwise.

Why There Aren’t More Prosecutions

 

ll day long on my X feed, I hear people angrily complaining why there aren’t more prosecutions of corrupt leftists, especially in the area of election wrongdoing. Well, as a former Maricopa County prosecutor and the Maricopa County Elections attorney, let me explain. 

From what I’ve learned over the years, the main reason prosecutors don’t bring charges against corrupt Democrats is because of the fear of retaliation by Democratic prosecutors — either from state prosecutors (think former Fulton County D.A. Fani Wills) or from DOJ prosecutors after Democrats take back the White House. 

We’ve all seen how horrible the retaliation is. It’s not just prosecution. The prosecutors will also lose their law licenses. They’ll be doxxed and receive death threats. Their reputations will be destroyed and it will be difficult to find jobs, even outside of the law. Most of them don’t have any other skills; they’ve spent their entire careers in the law. One of my friends who was wrongly disbarred by the corrupt State Bar of Arizona after a lengthy career in prosecution now works as a lower paid paralegal.

I always say I’m ironically lucky the left destroyed my law license, because if I’d gone to work for the DOJ under President Donald Trump, as soon as a Democrat gets back into the White House, I’d be one of their juiciest targets for disbarment and prosecution. I fear for all of Trump’s top DOJ attorneys. 

The next main reason prosecutors don’t bring charges is because they know all the bogus requirements left-leaning or sold out/blackmailed judges will insist on in order to allow a conviction. The standard for overthrowing elections used to be if the actions cast doubt on the results of the election — so even minor problems like waiting in a long line to vote or encountering problems with the voting machines that caused an hour's delay or so were enough to overturn elections. Now, judges insist that prosecutors prove the legal definition of “election fraud,” which is an extremely high bar. One honest judge, Iowa District Court Judge Ian Thornhill, said fraud wasn’t the standard, since “From a practical perspective, once fraud has occurred it will already likely be too late…”

If no judge will rule that there was election fraud, then it’s impossible to prosecute any official since there wasn’t any “wrongdoing.” 

So far, the only prosecutions of election wrongdoing are where the cases reach this newer high standard. In Maricopa County, former temporary Maricopa County Elections worker Walter Ringfield Jr., a Democrat activist, was sent to jail for several months after getting caught on surveillance video stealing a key FOB that was capable of reprogramming all of the county’s voting machine tabulators on Election Day.

Although Trump has appointed numerous Republican judges, Democratic appointees still retain a significant lead. There are 496 Democratic appointees on the federal bench to 405 Republican appointees. And many of the Republican appointees are compromised due to blackmail or “follow the money.” Evidence is finally coming out regarding this with elected Republican officials. No one ever understands why RINOs vote the way they do, but it’s really this simple — it’s not “principles” as they claim. 

Prosecution is also dominated by the left. Years ago, there was a perception that prosecution attracted more Republicans. Now, in large part due to leftist billionaire George Soros funneling money into prosecutorial races, the left dominates. A 2025 study in the Journal of Race, Ethnicity, and Politics found that Democrats make up 41 percent of prosecutors and Republicans make up 39 percent. 

This doesn’t even account for the fact that the prosecutors with all the power are in the big cities, which are run by the left or at best RINOs. Conservative prosecutors dominate rural areas or are line attorneys where they have no power over high-profile cases. 

So when people complain about former Attorney General Pam Bondi or Harmeet Dhillon, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division, not aggressively prosecuting enough corrupt actors, I don’t think they understand the full situation. 

We’ve seen the playbook too many times since 2020. Trump’s former DOJ attorney Jeffrey Clark merely drafted a letter — that was never even sent — from the DOJ to be sent to Georgia elected officials, advising them on how to handle the election anomalies. The D.C. Bar is now trying to disbar him, and Willis charged him with crimes. Fortunately, Willis’ prosecution of Clark, Trump and others went nowhere since her own corruption was so vast.

We saw how the left put Trump’s associates behind bars — Peter Navarro, Steve Bannon, George Papadopoulos, Paul Manafort, Rick Gates and Allen Weisselberg. General Michael Flynn and Roger Stone were prosecuted but escaped incarceration.

The left is already gearing up to hold hearings in Congress over Trump’s appointees; they are gloating about it if they retake the House of Representatives this fall. 

Republican prosecutors play a juggling act when they go after Democratic corruption. It’s not IF the left will come after them afterwards, it’s WHEN. Even if Democrats don’t take over the House this fall, plenty of rogue Democratic state and county prosecutors will target them. Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes is still prosecuting Arizona’s 2020 alternate electors for Trump and their associates, despite the fact Arizona courts have thrown out her indictments. 

Local prosecutors won’t do anything about it here — the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office is controlled by RINO Rachel Mitchell. Mitchell represented the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors asking for sanctions twice against Kari Lake and her attorneys over her election lawsuits. She also represented them again recently in their litigation with election integrity champion Maricopa County Recorder Justin Heap. The supervisors took away parts of Heap’s office from him, until the Arizona Supreme Court finally stopped the steal. Mitchell could have recused herself from these cases but didn’t.

It’s easy for us in our armchairs to demand prosecutions and berate Trump’s prosecutors for not putting more corrupt Democrats behind bars. But the situation is far more complex. What Republican prosecutor wants to go to prison?

Biden’s Afghanistan Withdrawal Destroyed American Deterrence

 

person 2: It is five years since, I don’t know if it’s today or yesterday or the last few days, five years ago, roughly around now, that Joe Biden commenced the bugout of Afghanistan. I don’t remember any of the generals at the time, or any military leaders, saying, “I’m resigning because this is just going to be a horrific outcome for the United States and for the world.”

But Biden did what he did. He praised it. “This was great. Look what we did.”

And your thoughts five years out?

person 1: Well, it was the greatest military humiliation, and I think as great or greater than the 1975 flight from the American Embassy in Vietnam of the last few American advisors, troops, and Vietnamese, and the boat people that followed. We had been there 20 years.

Joe Biden reportedly, allegedly, wanted to get out by 9/11 because he was going to broadcast that he was the first president to end the misadventure, he thought, in Afghanistan.

And we should remember at the time that Donald Trump had negotiated a withdrawal down to about 3,500 troops, and he was going to take the $300 million remodeled Bagram Air Force Base, which was defensible, I think 60 or 70 miles from Kabul, and basically control the airspace of all those critical nexus of power, whether it’s Pakistan, India, China, Russia. You had this huge recently remodeled base.

In addition to that, we had just put a billion dollars into the American Embassy. A billion dollars. And [Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman] Mark Milley spent the summer, along with [Secretary of Defense] Lloyd Austin, misinforming, in Fauci style, to us that, and they assured us that the, what, 350,000-person Afghan Army was viable. “Don’t worry, it’s viable.” And it wasn’t.

So once they heard that we wanted to get out and get out quickly with no conditions, and we weren’t going to do it from Bagram, which they couldn’t touch because they would have had to go out in the country and surround that place, and there was no way they could have entered and disrupted the flights.

But once they heard it was gonna be in Kabul, and once they knew that we were gonna run away, and once they saw that there was multi… The figure is controversial. The top figure I’ve seen is fifty billion, the lowest is seven billion. But it depends on the cost of transporting those weapons over there, maintaining them, and replacing them, etc., and the maintenance personnel involved in storing them.

But whatever it was, a multibillion-dollar gift of some of the latest weaponry, from small arms to machine guns to rockets to helicopters to heavy trucks to armored vehicles, and we gave it to the worst terrorists in the world.

And they opened a terrorist mart, so to speak, and those weapons have been showing up everywhere, that they’re selling to their fellow Islamist terrorists.

And it could have all been avoided. It could have all been avoided, and they lied to us repeatedly.

And that one incident, coupled with DEI, at the same time they were doing that, they were testifying at Congress—the head of naval operations, the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Army chief of staff—they were all telling us that they were reading Professor [Ibram X.] Kendi. He’s in the news again, audience.

They were reading his books, and there was systematic racism in the wake of the George Floyd riot, and they were gonna ferret it out, and they could assure Congress that they had fully implemented diversity, equity, inclusion.

And the result of that humiliation and no contrition about it and the DEI new protocols that would, what, privilege race and gender and sexual orientation over merit in terms of recruitment, promotion, advancement, etc. All of that led to a 40,000- to 50,000-person shortfall.

And as soon as we got a confident military again, and as soon as we dropped the DEI racial prejudice and sexual prejudice and gender prejudice, as soon as we did that, guess what? We more than met all of our recruitment goals.

But there was one other footnote to this, Jack. That was the point of August 2021 that Joe Biden had a honeymoon. He had been kept away during the campaign. Nobody had seen the level of cognitive decline. They were just starting to see it. He was in carefully-scripted Jen Psaki press conferences. “I’ll circle back on that. I’ll circle back on that question.” Stonewalling.

But after that, he never got over 50% again. People just… And then they started reading what we were doing. We had a $80 million gender studies program at the University of Kabul in a traditional Islamic society. We were like British colonialists trying to, you know, not bring the rule of law and the end of suttee in India, but crazy stuff.

And then there were George Floyd posters we saw on the streets of Kabul that we had sponsored artists. And then, I think, he went to the website. I guess it was superimposed, a Pride flag on, I don’t know if it actually flew, but you could go to the website and see it on the U.S. Embassy in an Islamic country from left-wing, our left-wing people who lecture us on cultural sensitivity.

And so it was a misadventure, and he wanted to get credit for taking it out at the expense of the safety of our troops and the interest of our national security. And 13 people died.

And then in our retaliation, Mark Milley and the hierarchy lied and said it was collateral damage. It was not. There were civilians killed. There were.

And the low point for me is when that plane took off again, and people were hanging from the wheels and grabbing, trying, you know, falling off on the tarmac. And then a spokesman for the Army came on CNN. I was watching. He said, “And I want to assure you that when they’re in the air and when they land, they’re going to have culturally-appropriate food. We’re going to have Mediterranean Afghanistan gourmet meals for them.”

And one of the reporters, I don’t know who it was, said, “Have they been vetted? Do you know?”

“Well, I mean, yes. They’re contractors, assistants, or they were trained.”

They weren’t. They weren’t vetted at all. In fact, there were American contractors and pro-American Afghans that were left behind. A lot of those pro-American Afghans got murdered because they couldn’t get out. And we took some people who had terrorist ties on the plane. It was just a typical Biden border operation. You know what I mean? Just like the border. Just a joke.

person 2: Bum rush. Bum rush America.

person 1: Yeah. And it was really humiliating. That was the nadir of that.

They tried to lie about it. They said everything went well. It was planned, da-da-da. But they couldn’t hide that from the American people. He never regained 50%.

They tried to say, “Well, Trump was the one that ordered us out in his last few…”

No, Trump had told the Taliban, “I know where you live. We have satellite imagery of all of you. If you break this deal and try to go after Bagram, etc., we’re going to kill you.”

And there hadn’t been a problem.

Maybe some of our listeners will say, and it’s legitimate, “Well, Victor, we have no business over there anyway. You can’t create constitutional government out of a medieval tribal society. And one American life is not worth it. Not even one. Losing one American life is not worth all the billions.”

And there’s a point. But it could have been scaled back carefully, not the way it happened. And it really hurt our deterrence because everybody should remember who was watching this. Vladimir Putin was.

And so Vladimir Putin, in his little notebook, said, “Biden, disgraceful, humiliating withdrawal from… Unlike our withdrawal from Afghanistan, which was measured, they couldn’t even do this. Oh, and number two, Biden also said for me to knock off hacking of American institutions. If I were to do it, at least stop hacking nonprofits, not stop it at all, at all costs, just the nonprofits and the humanitarian targets.”

Oh, and Putin’s little book said, “Oh, he put a hold on offensive weapons that Trump had approved to Ukraine. Oh, here’s another thing I’m looking at,” Putin thought. “He said that he would react accordingly whether it was a minor or major invasion. So we’ll just invade and say it’s minor and he won’t do anything.”

So he destroyed American deterrence, and it started with Afghanistan. It was no accident that in February, just a few months later, this was in mid-August, right where we are now, 2021, on Feb.24, about six months later, he went into Ukraine.