When the Left Ignores Federal Law and Sounds Like Neo-Confederates

 person 1: So, I asked two questions from Barry McDonald in the last episode. We’re doing two vacation episodes, you and I are. I know you’re doing two with the great Sami Winc. And he asked simply about sanctuary cities.

Victor, tell us: What are their dangers, their legal loopholes? I don’t know if you need to get into that. How did they come to be? Victor, you’ve talked about sanctuary cities before. They’re not just a simple happenstance in America. I think they’re dangerous things. But what do you think, my friend?

person 2: Well, they’re unconstitutional, that’s for sure. And I will just preface my answer with this: If Donald Trump, the MAGA movement, conservatives, Republicans adopted the idea of sanctuary cities, a neo-Confederate states’ rights idea right out of the mouth of John C. Calhoun, they would do something like this.

They would say, “The state of Utah, or a city of Casper, Wyoming, or Mobile, Alabama, we declare that we don’t honor the Federal Endangered Species Act. We just don’t honor it. So, if we have a developer and he’s carving out a golf course and there is a three-eared toad that’s endangered, he’s just gonna smash him because we don’t honor federal law here. We’re not gonna cooperate with the [Environmental Protection Agency].”

Or if somebody in a county, I’m not picking on states, I’m just doing it randomly, but let’s say a county in Arkansas said, “You know what? I can read the Second Amendment. It says I have a right to bear arms. And I find in our county, we’ve decided that it is unconstitutional to make you register a handgun with the federal government. So, we are a sanctuary city, and no one in this county in Arkansas is gonna register any federal guns, and we’re not gonna cooperate at all with the ATF, Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. If they try to come in here, we’re gonna protest, we’re gonna combine, we’re gonna do everything we can.”

Well, you can imagine what would happen. A Barack Obama or Joe Biden or Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton would say, “You’re an insurrectionist.” And they would call out federal troops because, in the Constitution, it’s clear that in matters of federal law, they trump state law. And that is a federal matter: immigration.

Somehow, we have over 600 entities, counties, cities, entire states like California. And that means that when law enforcement arrest, if you’re in California—and I’ve had this happen four or five times in the last 40 years, where an illegal alien on a Sunday afternoon or Saturday night went airborne drunk and plowed in and took out 10 almond trees or 20 vines, and we heard a big crash, and we went out there, and the car was littered with drugs and alcohol bottles, and the driver took off. Or sometimes, on two occasions, he was there.

I call the police and, first of all, I couldn’t possess the car. They wouldn’t let me tow it away or keep it to pay for the thousands of dollars of damage. But when they took him in and bailed him out, I said, “Are you gonna deport him if he’s illegal?”

“No, we’re not gonna deport him. We can’t.”

I mean, “We’ve had this now for, I guess, 15 years. We’re not gonna deport him. We don’t recognize federal immigration law here in California.”

And then you say, “Well, maybe you shouldn’t go to Yosemite. Maybe the federal government should say, ‘We own Yosemite, and we don’t want you to go into our national park until you honor our national law. You’re an American first and a Californian second.’”

But they get away with it. They get lower-court judges to rewrite the law.

And Donald Trump is the first president—and people should remember that, who are so critical of him. He’s the first person to challenge it. And he has tried to cut off transportation funds to these cities and some federal funds to these cities and entities and counties and states that break federal law.

And of course, the lower courts have opposed him. It’s a neo-Confederate idea. I thought we settled the issue, Jack, with Fort Sumter, which was a federal fort. Lincoln fortified it, and South Carolina fired on it. And they said, “Oh, it’s in our proximity.”

And Lincoln said, “No, no, no, no. It’s a federal fort. It’s federal land. And by the way, post offices and armories in your Confederacy don’t belong to you. They’re federal property.”

And that was really the pretext of the whole Civil War. The real issues were slavery, of course, and states’ rights, but the trigger was they were not going to let federal troops occupy federal property, which was illegal.

So, all of a sudden, I guess the Left has turned into right-wing states’ rights people.

person 1: Yeah.

person 2: And it won’t stop until the federal government goes to the Supreme Court and says, “You have the right to deny federal funds to entities that break federal law.” And believe me, they don’t allow any state, any red state, purple state, or county to defy federal law. Right. You know what I mean?

person 1: Yeah. I’m always struck by that, Victor, the accessibility to federal funds. From our youth, mine anyway, the implementation of the 55-mile-an-hour speed limit was somehow tied to if you didn’t do it, you weren’t getting federal funds.

person 2: Exactly. I remember that.

Yeah. I think it was Montana or Wyoming that said, “We’re not gonna do it.”

person 1: Yeah.

person 2: And they said, “If you don’t do it, you’re not going to get federal funds.” I don’t know why we can’t do that again.

Yeah. But what it means is you arrest somebody for drunk driving or for murder or for assault, and if he posts bond or there is no cash bail and you let him out, we used to say that you check their immigration status and you called [Immigration and Customs Enforcement]. And then ICE showed up, and they got him, and they looked at him, and they deported him if it was a crime that was a minor felony or a misdemeanor. They deported him immediately.

But now, as we saw with that judge, if ICE shows up at a hearing, not just on immigration status, but a felon, and they know that an illegal alien is there, the judge, as we saw in that one case, helped him escape from ICE.

person 1: The Wisconsin judge who got a rap on the hands.

person 2: Yeah. Nothing really happened to her.

They didn’t really do much to her. And law enforcement is ordered by these sanctuary mayors and governors and supervisors not to cooperate. It’s against the law.

[New York City Mayor Zohran] Mamdani will fire you if you are a policeman and you arrest an illegal alien, and when he gets out of jail, you call ICE.

person 1: Yeah. We talked on a recent episode about these 21 blue states and the District of Columbia suing the federal government over, you talked about it, illegal licenses. It just struck me while you were talking: It’s a crime, I guess, to be here illegally and to have a CDL license. But what about the people who are handing out the CDL licenses who are government workers? There is some criminal stuff.

There’s a federality going on there.

person 2: Yeah, there is. You remember, was it a candidate for governor in Maryland or somewhere that had an illegal alien living in their loft, in their barn, or garage? And people cited a statute that said knowingly harboring an illegal alien and abetting him was a crime. It is, but no one …

You know, the Left just says, “There’s your law, and then there’s our sense of morality, our law, and we’re better, we’re smarter than you are. We’re more morally superior. So, we like the law when it’s convenient, and it can be used to advance our agenda or to hurt your agenda. But otherwise, we don’t really follow it. We don’t really care.

“If we don’t have the court, we want to pack it. If we won the popular vote but lost the Electoral College, we want to get rid of the Electoral College. If we can’t win enough senators, we want to bring in two states and get four senators. If we’re in the minority, well, then the filibuster is great. When we’re in the majority, it’s a racist holdover.”

They’re like adolescents. They really are. Anybody that’s raised teenagers knows that they always look at the entire world through their self-interest for a year or two until they grow up. But they never grew up. They’re arrested development.

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.