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.

The Left’s Search for a Working-Class Candidate

 person 1: So, the Left. Let’s talk about them. I know that you’re currently working on an article about the Left as middle class and representative of the middle class, or maybe not. And so, I’ll go with that first, and then maybe we can look at some of the communist socialist questions with the Left.

person 2: I think I’m going to title it “The Left-Wing Search for the Aborigine White Working-Class Male.” And just to preface it, as the Democratic Party in the post-JFK period went left, left, left, it started to lose the white working class.

For example, in 2024, those who were white, male or female, but did not have a college education were still 40% of the electorate. And they were overrepresented because they registered and voted with greater frequency than other groups. Of that group, [Donald] Trump won 66%. And what that means to the Democratic Party, and this has been going on, is they have no margin of error when they lose that great of a demographic.

So, they have to pander, pander, pander to DEI. So, the black, black, black, black, black, BLM, BLM, da, da, da, da, La Raza, La Raza, La Raza, open borders, open borders. And then that only further … that 66% used to be 52, 58. Each election it goes up. So, they’re in a doom loop. So, they’ve decided that they’ve got to come up with a Bill Clinton solution.

And that is, how do you win back 50%? They can’t. They’ll never get over 50%. And they’re losing them because of their agenda. They won’t change. We love illegal immigrants. We want open borders. We’re going to have a new demographic, a new Democratic majority. Demography is destiny. No cash bail. Trans, trans, trans, trans everywhere.

You know, abortion to the moment of birth. Green New Deal, Green New Deal, war on fossil fuels. All of those are 30-70 issues. So, they don’t want to change the issues. They just won’t do it. And they know they have to. So they came up with another solution. It’s an old solution. Let’s find working white-class male candidates.

But there are none, really, that are genuine, that want that agenda or want to hang out with them. Remember, these people … they talk about oligarchs and billionaires. This is the party of oligarchs and billionaires. I’m talking about their donor class.

Who are their donor class that funds all this left-wing activity? It’s Melinda Gates, the bitter divorced wife who’s worth $100 billion. It’s MacKenzie … is that her name? Bezos, who was divorced, also embittered. She’s got $75 or $80 billion, and she’s a big left-wing donor.

And then there was Jeffrey Epstein. He was a big donor. There was, of course, Bill Gates. There were the Soros manifestations, all of their secret little funds. There was this nut in China, Neville Singham. There was our friend, my neighbor for a while at campus, [Samuel] Bankman-Fried. He was a big donor, the biggest in the midterms a few years ago. And then there’s Laurene Jobs, another widow.

And the money is all predictable. Either they inherited it from their husband in a divorce, or he died. That’s Laurene Jobs, or the divorces of the former Mrs. Gates and the former Mrs. Bezos. So, they didn’t create the money themselves.

And when you look at Singham, or you look at Epstein or Bankman-Fried or Reid Hoffman, it’s not like they’re building rockets or Teslas, or they’re bringing products to your doorstep like Amazon. They’re all into finance, crypto, investment. Not that there’s anything wrong with that, but it’s a different type of wealth than farming, mining, construction, or invention.

So, they’re a very wealthy party. And these new socialists that have joined it are very wealthy. Andrew Stiles, who’s a very effective writer for The Free Beacon, has a whole story today. He calls them “trust fund socialists.” He looks at all of them.

It’s [Zohran] Mamdani, who’s very wealthy. He has an estate. His family has an estate on Lake Victoria where he was married, with highly reinforced security, a two-acre estate, that settler-colonial family.

person 1: Yeah. Do you think that’s where he’s going to abscond to as soon as he’s done every communist thing he can?

person 2: His Indian Uganda community, as I keep saying, is 1% that controls 60% of the wealth, and no one says a word.

And then, when you look at Graham Platner, he went to prep school, Hotchkiss, subsidized by his parents.

And then you look at [Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez], upper-upper-middle class, keeps talking about “eat the rich” and all this stuff.

So, the socialist candidates, they’re either in graduate school or law school, or they got subsidies, or they’re recent immigrants that were subsidized. But they’re all well off. And the donors are the billionaire class.

And so, they have a problem. The white working class looks at these people and says, “You’re wealthy. Mamdani, you sound like a spoiled brat. Platner, we don’t buy your shtick.”

So, what the Left is doing is … and this is how they got in trouble. They had Morris Katz and this other guy that were their finders of fake middle-class candidates.

And that guy goes, “And then we looked at Platner, and he was the thing.”

Did you vet him?

Well, kind of.

I mean, they were incompetent. It’s not like they have James Carville or Mark Penn or Doug Schoen, the old guys that won the elections. These people are … or Mark Halperin. Those type of guys are experts. They’re professionals.

I don’t agree with Carville, but I give him his due. He’s smart. And so, I like Mark Penn. I like Mark Halperin. I like Doug Schoen. They’re all professionals.

But that’s not who they’re listening to. They’re listening to these little nepo babies, and they know nothing.

So, now their solution is, well, if we’re all wealthy, and the wealthy class funds us, and we like wealthy socialists, and we never said a word about [Nancy] Pelosi cashing in, then we need fake working-class people because there are none that are genuine.

And then they think, well, you know, when we went Left, we couldn’t nominate a Democratic candidate from the North because they lost. So, we had LBJ, a Southerner. He won.

And then we went to [Hubert] Humphrey. He was a northern liberal. He lost.

So, then we thought, well, that was an outlier. We’ll get [George] McGovern, a North Dakota northern liberal. And he lost in ’72.

So, then they said, we’re not going to do this anymore. We’ve got to go back to LBJ. “Hi, I’m Jimmy Carter.” So, that worked.

And then he lost the second time to [Ronald] Reagan.

And then they said, well, he lost. We’re going to go to [Walter] Mondale. And he lost in ’84.

So, then they said, well, we’ve got to have a … and they put in Mike Dukakis. And he lost.

And then guys like Schoen and Penn and all those guys said, “I told you. You can’t double down on left-wing extremism from a bunch of northern do-gooders. You need southern boys to do your bidding.”

And so, they got Bill Clinton. And he won twice, with the help of Ross Perot, who took away a lot of the vote from George Bush and Bob Dole.